Supreme Court to decidePledge of Allegiance case

The Supreme Court will decide whether the recitation of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance by public-school students amounts to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

The justices agreed to review a controversial ruling made by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that banned the pledge in public schools because the phrase "one nation under God" was said to violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

The San Francisco court's initial ruling in June 2002 sparked outrage across the country. President George W. Bush slammed the ruling as "ridiculous" and called on the Supreme Court to review the case. The Senate unanimously passed a resolution in support of the pledge.

In March, the appeals court reaffirmed its earlier ruling creating additional furor. Within 48 hours after this second ruling, some 1.3 million people had endorsed an online petition posted by the American Family Association, or AFA, which seeks a constitutional amendment to protect the pledge and national motto.

Sacramento atheist activist Michael Newdow mounted the now-infamous legal challenge against Congress for inserting the phrase "under God" in the pledge in 1954, and against the Elk Grove Unified School District in California for its policy of having teachers lead students in reciting the pledge in class.

California law requires the pledge to be recited daily at public elementary schools, although children are allowed to opt out.

Newdow claimed subjecting his 8-year-old daughter, who attends Elk Grove Elementary, to the recitation of the pledge amounted to "daily indoctrination of religious dogma."

"I consider it injury to have government force dogma down the throats of little children," Newdow told WorldNetDaily.

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

As WorldNetDaily reported, Newdow's daughter voluntarily recites the pledge and told her mother upon hearing of the court ruling that she would "whisper 'one nation under God' and no one will hear her and know she is breaking the law."

Sandra Banning, the girl's mother and sole legal custodian, joined the legal fray to preserve the pledge and to protect her daughter's reputation.

"I was concerned that the American public would be led to believe that my daughter is an atheist or that she has been harmed by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, including the words, 'one nation under God,'" Banning said in a statement released to members of Congress and obtained by WND. "In our home, we are practicing Christians and are active in our church," she said.

The American Center for Law and Justice, a public-interest law firm specializing in constitutional law that petitioned the Supreme Court to review the appellate ruling, hailed today's decision by the Supreme Court as "an important opportunity to put a halt to a national effort aimed at removing any religious phrase or reference from our culture."

"We're pleased that the Supreme Court has decided to consider whether Michael Newdow has standing to challenge a school policy involving the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ, in a press release. "It is our position that Newdow does not have standing and should never have been permitted to file the lawsuit. This is a critical First Amendment case that will have wide-ranging implications. The pledge is part of an American tapestry of time-honored and historically significant traditions that has come under attack."

The ACLJ's brief represented 33 members of Congress and nearly 157,000 Americans from all 50 states. Sekulow says ACLJ will file another brief in support of the Justice Department's request to overturn the appeals court decision.

The public-interest, religious-liberty legal group Alliance Defense Fund also submitted an amicus brief to the 9th Circuit Court and plans to submit another to the Supreme Court in support of the government's argument to keep the pledge intact.

"The attempt to remove the words 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance demonstrates that those who have contempt for America's heritage won't go away," said alliance president Alan Sears in a statement. "The Supreme Court did the right thing by accepting this case for review. Now let's pray the court continues to do the right thing by telling Mr. Newdow's complaint to go away."

The justices will hear arguments in the case early next year, with a decision likely by June.

Court refuses to reconsider Pledge ruling

Pressure on to rehear Pledge case

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:

David Limbaugh's 'Persecution' – autographed!

Battling the tenets of Secular Humanism