High court upholds pledge without addressing ‘under God’

By Tom Strode - Jun 15, 2004

The Supreme Court protected the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance June 14 but did so without deciding whether the reference to deity is constitutional.

All eight justices involved in the case agreed to overrule a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that a California school district’s policy requiring recitation of the pledge by willing students is unconstitutional. A majority of five based the court’s opinion on a technical rather than a constitutional matter, deciding atheist Michael Newdow did not have legal standing to represent his daughter in the challenge to the pledge. While agreeing with the outcome, three other justices said “under God” is constitutional.

The result is American schools maintain the right to have the recitation of the pledge as part of their classroom practice, but the possibility remains the high court may rule in a later case “under God” violates the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion.

Supporters of the pledge’s current language applauded the decision, even though the Flag Day ruling fell short of a total victory.

“We’re back now to the status quo . . . and I’m happy with that,” ERLC President Richard Land said. “As long as American children can voluntarily say the Pledge of Allegiance, then I’ve got no problems.

“I don’t think the Supreme Court wanted the American people amending the Constitution with record rapidity, which they would have done [had the justices ruled against the pledge],” Land said. “So they chose what they often do when they don’t want to really confront an issue, and that is the path of least resistance.”

The high court, with Associate Justice John Paul Stevens writing the majority opinion, said a California Superior Court ruling that Sandra Banning, the mother of Newdow’s elementary-age daughter, “makes the final decisions” when there is a disagreement between the parents means he “lacks the right to litigate as [his daughter’s] next friend.”

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and associates Sandra Day O’Connor and Clarence Thomas wrote opinions concurring with the majority’s judgment while saying the pledge does not violate the establishment clause.

The opinion in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow may be accessed on the Internet at www.supremecourtus.gov .

Further Learning

Learn more about: Citizenship, Christian Citizenship, Church and State, Racial Reconciliation