WASHINGTON (ABP) — Once again, a federal court in California has found the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional because the oath affirms that the United States is “under God.”
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton, ruling in Sacramento Sept. 14, said three Sacramento County school districts' policies encouraging recitation of the pledge violates the First Amendment. In his opinion, Karlton wrote that the act of government officials — in this case, principals and teachers — leading students in reciting the words violates the children's right to be “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.”
The suit is similar to one that Michael Newdow, an atheist who has a child in one of the school districts, lost last year in the Supreme Court because Newdow, a non-custodial parent, lacked the proper legal standing to bring the suit. Therefore, the high court never considered the constitutional merits raised by Newdow's case, which was Elk Grove Unified School District vs. Newdow.
In the current case, Newdow vs. Congress of the United States, Newdow is joined by three unnamed atheist parents. They claim the school districts' policies violate their right to raise their children free of government coercion to believe in a monotheistic God.
Karlton's ruling came on a motion from the affected school districts — the Elk Grove district along with the Elverta Joint Elementary School District and the Rio Linda School District — to dismiss the case. In court papers, they cited the Supreme Court ruling, which reversed a 2002 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
But Karlton noted that the high court never explicitly overturned the lower court's finding that the districts' policies violate the First Amendment's ban on government establishment of religion. Since the new parents have standing to file the case, it may proceed, he said.
“Because this court is bound by the 9th Circuit's holding…it follows that the school districts' policies violate the establishment clause of the Constitution,” Karlton wrote. “Accordingly, upon a properly supported motion, the court must enter a restraining order” barring the schools from directing recitation of the pledge.
If the case is appealed to the 9th Circuit — as it is expected to — and that court agrees with Karlton, then public-school recitation of the pledge with the offending words will be illegal in the nine Western states over which that panel has jurisdiction.
The 9th Circuit's original ruling on the pledge was wildly unpopular, leaving a wave of controversy in its wake. Many politicians — and not just conservative Republicans — denounced it. Conservative religious leaders have pointed to it as chief among the examples of “judicial activism” that they said are plaguing the nation's courts.
The latest decision is also likely to be a target for controversy. It came in the middle of confirmation hearings for John Roberts, the federal appellate judge President Bush has nominated to succeed the late William Rehnquist as the 17th chief justice of the United States.
Senate Judiciary Committee member Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), while questioning Roberts Sept. 14, mentioned the just-released pledge decision.
“This is an example, in my opinion, of where judges do not protect us from having the government impose religion upon us, but declare war on all things religious,” Graham said. “That's why Americans are sometimes dumbfounded by the things going on in the name of religion.”
Since the decision was news to many in the marble-and-wood-paneled hearing room, Graham's mention sent a wave of whispers across the press gallery.
Karlton, at the beginning of his opinion, noted the publicity it is likely to stir, saying it dealt with “something of a cause celebre in the ongoing struggle as to the role
of religion in the civil life of this nation.”
However, he added that his ruling will likely “satisfy no one involved in that debate,” because he disagreed with another aspect of the plaintiffs' assertions — that the 1954 act of Congress adding the words “under God” to the pledge was itself unconstitutional.
The pledge's original version first came into wide use in 1892 and did not mention God, although it was composed by a Baptist minister. Congress first made it the official pledge to the flag in 1942. Twelve years later, legislators added the words “under God” as a response to the perceived atheistic threat of communism.
The 9th Circuit's original 2002 decision found that act unconstitutional as well, but the court later limited its decision only to the pledge's recitation in public schools. Karlton said he was also bound by that part of the appeals court's decision.
At least one group praised Karlton's decision. The Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State — one of the few organizations to publicly support Newdow's original case — said in a press release that the latest ruling “shows respect for religious diversity.”