All eyes are on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this week after the Justice Department filed its promised appeal to the ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance, and the deadline for appeals passes.

Government attorneys asked for a hearing before all 11 appellate judges in San Francisco to reconsider a three-judge panel's decision that reciting the Pledge in public schools is unconstitutional.

In a legal brief filed late last week, government attorneys argued the Supreme Court has already determined the words "under God" in the Pledge are among "many ceremonial references to our religious heritage and do not establish a religious faith."

Justice also asserted that Michael Newdow, the atheist activist who brought the case on behalf of himself and his 8-year-old daughter, does not have the legal standing to do so because he does not have custody of the child.

The emergency room physician filed his case against Congress for inserting the phrase "under God" into the Pledge in 1954 and against the Elk Grove Unified School District in Elk Grove, Calif. for its policy to have teachers lead students in the recitation of the Pledge in class.

In his complaint, Newdow argued the government's use of the words "under God" infringes upon his right as a parent to "inculcate in his daughter ... the atheistic beliefs he finds persuasive."

As WorldNetDaily reported, Sandra Banning gained sole legal custody of her daughter in February. She filed a motion last week seeking to intervene or have the case dismissed.

"My daughter is a Christian who regularly attends church, and she believes in God. Therefore, my daughter does not share Mr. Newdow's atheist belief that there is no God," Banning said in the court filing.

"I was entirely unaware that Mr. Newdow had filed his cause of action in part by naming my daughter as one of the 'Parties' and an 'unnamed plaintiff,'" Banning further contended in court documents. "As my daughter's sole legal custodian ... I believe it is not in my daughter's interests to be party to this cause of action, I would never have granted permission for her to be party to this cause of action had I been asked by [Newdow] or any other person or court, and I do not wish for her to continue being party to this cause of action."

"I think I still have standing as a parent," Newdow told WND. "I had legal standing and it was only recently taken away," he added pointing out he still maintains physical custody of the child."

Newdow also argued he has legal standing in the case because the Pledge directly affects him as a citizen, and because he pays tax dollars to the government to fund the public school his daughter attends.

The Justice petition for rehearing follows similar appeals filed by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Gov. Gray Davis, and the Elk Grove school district.

Several "friend-of-the-court" briefs have also been filed, with the latest coming Tuesday from The American Center for Law and Justice on behalf of itself and 17 members of Congress.

"The decision that the phrase 'One nation under God' is unconstitutional is not only flawed in a legal sense, but ignores Supreme Court precedent protecting this kind of language," argued Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ, an international public-interest law firm. "Not only is there tremendous public support for reversing this damaging decision, but there is ample legal precedent to do so as well."

The 17 Republican members of the House of Representatives named in the petition are Rep. Robert B. Aderholt (R-AL), Rep. Todd Akin (R- MO), Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT), Rep. Michael Collins (R-GA), Rep. Jo Ann S. Davis (R-VA), Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA), Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Rep. Virgil H. Goode, Jr. (R-VA), Rep. Lindsey Graham (R- SC), Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Rep. Ernest Istook, Jr. (R-OK), Rep. Donald Manzullo (R- IL), Rep. Charles Pickering, Jr. (R-MS), Rep. Bob Riley (R-AL), Rep. Jim R. Ryun (R-KS), Rep. J.C. Watts, Jr. (R-OK), Rep. Dave Weldon, M.D. (R-FL).

As WorldNetDaily reported, other petitioners filing "friend-of-the-court" briefs seeking a rehearing include the United States Justice Foundation, the American Legion and the National Association of Attorneys General.

"What this is all about is the religious right is afraid of losing their god. That's what this is all about," Newdow told WND.

The deadline for appeals to be filed was Monday. According to Dave Madden, spokesman for the 9th Circuit, all 24 active circuit judges have been reviewing the various petitions. What happens next is that one of them will call for a vote as to whether the case should be reheard. If a majority favors the rehearing, a panel of 11 judges consisting of the chief judge and 10 others chosen at random would sit for the case.

"Now the court can take its time," Madden told WND. "[A decision] could happen this week or it could take a month. There's no way to tell."

Earlier stories:

Pledge mom files motion

Public pressure mounts against Pledge ruling

Pledge mom fights to keep 'under God'

Pledge case to be reheard?

Pledge judge protested

Pledge battle all about dad?

---

Related special offers:

'America's Real War': Combating secularism

Child's musical guide to the Constitution

Patriotism in your pocket

The Liberty Collection