Originally published March 11, 2010 at 4:16 PM | Page modified March 12, 2010 at 2:28 PM
Comments (0)
E-mail article
Print
Share
Divided 9th Circuit upholds God in Pledge of Allegiance
A divided federal appeals court Thursday reversed itself, ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't violate the constitutional prohibition...
Los Angeles Times
RICH PEDRONCELLI / AP
In this 2004 photo, Michael Newdow looks down at the fax copy of the Supreme Court's ruling preserving the phrase "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance outside his Sacramento, Calif., home. A federal appeals court in San Francisco has ruled that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional.
LOS ANGELES — A divided federal appeals court Thursday reversed itself, ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't violate the constitutional prohibition against state-mandated religious exercise even though it contains the phrase "one nation under God."
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 2002, which deemed that requiring students to recite the pledge violated their rights to be free of religious indoctrination by the government, was one of the most controversial to come out of the court that is second only to the U.S. Supreme Court in its power to determine law for nine Western states and two Pacific territories.
The appeals court's earlier decision had been reviewed by the Supreme Court in 2004, but the justices dodged the constitutional question on procedural grounds, throwing out the lawsuit brought by a Sacramento, Calif., atheist and leaving intact the wording of the patriotic declaration.
Also decided Thursday was a challenge brought by the same plaintiff, Michael Newdow, to the phrase "In God We Trust" printed on the nation's money. The same three-judge panel ruled that an earlier case had found the phrase to be a national motto and that its placement on U.S. coins and currency wasn't required by any government statute.
The Establishment Clause of the Constitution's First Amendment prohibits the enactment of a law or official policy that establishes a religion or religious faith.
The 9th Circuit's earlier ruling that the pledge unconstitutionally included "under God" stirred nationwide controversy and exposed Newdow, a physician and lawyer, to virulent scorn for attacking the religious references.
In Thursday's ruling, written by Judge Carlos Bea, an appointee of President George W. Bush, the judges ruled 2-1 that Newdow and others who joined his lawsuit didn't have standing to challenge the 1954 amendment to the pledge adding the words "under God" because no federal statute requires them to recite it.
Senior Circuit Judge Dorothy Nelson joined Bea in the ruling, but Judge Stephen Reinhardt dissented, writing that "the state-directed, teacher-led daily recitation in public schools of the amended 'under God' version of the Pledge of Allegiance ... violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution."
Nelson and Reinhardt were both appointed to the court by President Carter.
UPDATE - 10:01 AM
Rebels tighten hold on Libya oil port
UPDATE - 09:29 AM
Reality leads US to temper its tough talk on Libya
UPDATE - 09:38 AM
2 Ark. injection wells may be closed amid quakes
Armed guards save Dutch couple from Somali pirates
Navy to release lewd video investigation findings
More Nation & World headlines...
![]()

Entertainment | Top Video | World | Offbeat Video | Sci-Tech
nwautos
GM's "Happy Grad" 2012 Super Bowl ad. (General Motors) GM cuts Super Bowl from its ad budget General Motors says it won't run ads during the next Supe...
Post a comment
- Madrona dad killed by a bullet as he drove through Central Area
- Seattle police twice face hostile crowds at scenes of violent crime
- Brandon League looks out of his own for Mariners
- Some costs going up Friday as private retailers take over liquor sales
- Juror alternates' actions have court on red alert
- Upset neighbors say Kirkland condo project is too big
- Ex-boyfriend sought in death of Renton girl, 17
- Vatican in chaos after butler arrested for leaks
- Which Seattle restaurant is on "America's Most Expensive" list? | All You Can Eat
- League out of closer role | Mariners Blog
- Madrona dad killed by stray bullet as he drove through Central Area
510 - M's-Angels game thread, May 26
354 - Traffic study gives arena a green light; critics see red
274 - Some costs going up Friday as private retailers take over liquor sales
182 - Seattle police twice face hostile crowds at scenes of violence crime
180 - A worthwhile conversation about charter schools
133 - May questions, volume seven
87 - Brandon League blows save in the ninth...again
82 - Brandon League looks out of his own for Mariners
66 - Bain Capital and our screwed-up culture
57
- Madrona dad killed by a bullet as he drove through Central Area
- A second chance for idle electronics
- Upset neighbors say Kirkland condo project is too big
- 'Tutankhamun' in Seattle: artifacts both dazzling and humble | Art review
- First Bellevue high-rise in four years breaks ground
- Seattle police twice face hostile crowds at scenes of violent crime
- Obscure law used by prosecutors is 'sneak-and-peek stuff'
- Which Seattle restaurant is on "America's Most Expensive" list? | All You Can Eat
- Some costs going up Friday as private retailers take over liquor sales
- Shooting victim a dad just like me | Danny Westneat










