Online Exclusive: Pledge of Allegiance ‘under god’ lawsuit dismissed

By Estela Fuentes
The Guardsman

The U.S. 9th Circuit District Court has dismissed a suit filed by attorney Michael Newdow seeking to remove the phrase “under god” from the Pledge of Allegiance. The court says the phrase does not violate the Bill of Rights’ Establishment Clause concerning religious freedom.

Newdow, an atheist, began his battle against the phrase “under god” about nine years ago with a petition against the Elk Grove Unified School District. He felt that the exercise of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in class on a daily basis would make his daughter believe in the superiority of monotheistic religion.

Newdow’s petition was dismissed because he did not have custody of his daughter so he then submitted a petition on behalf of three unnamed families against the Rio Linda Union School District. In this petition he also included a plea to remove the phrase “In God We Trust” from U.S. currency.

The court determined the phrase “under god” in the Pledge of Allegiance is used in the same context as “In God We Trust” is used on currency and affirmed it did not violate the Establishment Clause. The Pledge of Allegiance and its recitation is a patriotic exercise and does not establish one religion over others, according to the case report for Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District.

There are two different approaches to determine if something violates the Establishment Clause, UC Hastings constitutional law professor Calvin Massey said. The argument has to be coercive and the government has to endorse or impose one religious viewpoint over others.

“Since the Pledge of Allegiance isn’t required to be said, no one may be forced to say it. The argument that the majority makes in the 9th Circuit case is that it’s not coercive,” Massey said.

Not everyone at City College agrees.

“I don’t agree with the court because I think that their decision is imposing the idea that there is one god not only to atheists, but also to religions that believe in more than one god,” City College student Danica Peña said.

Some students do support the ruling.

“I think the court ruled correctly because many religions believe in one god, so it’s not like the government is promoting just one specific religion, ” City College student Joseph Morro said.

Massey said it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will review this case.

“Until there is a split between the circuits meaning that some other U.S. Court of Appeals in another part of the country reaches a contrary decision I don’t think this is a case the Supreme Court will review,” Massey said.