A federal judge in Sacramento ruled Wednesday that it was unconstitutional to require public school children to recite the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, reviving a contentious legal fight that inflamed the cultural wars over religion's place in government.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton said he was bound by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled that the words "under God," added by Congress in 1954 during the McCarthy era, rendered the pledge unconstitutional.
Michael A. Newdow, the atheist who won the 9th Circuit ruling, ultimately lost his case last year before the U.S. Supreme Court. Without deciding the constitutional question of separation of church and state, the high court ruled that Newdow had no legal standing to sue on behalf of his grade-school daughter because he did not have primary custody.
Newdow still lacks standing, but his new lawsuit may go forward because he has added plaintiffs who are parents with full custody of their children, Karlton decided. The ruling affects the Elk Grove Unified School District, the Eleverta Joint School District and the Rio Linda Union School District in Sacramento County.
Religious conservatives, joined by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, immediately denounced Karlton's decision in a replay of the uproar that ensued when the 9th Circuit first ruled in Newdow's favor. They said Karlton's ruling would become a weapon in their battle to ensure that the U.S. Senate confirms President Bush's conservative nominees to the high court. The Supreme Court has the final say on the pledge's constitutionality.
The nomination of John G. Roberts Jr., a conservative jurist whom Bush selected to replace the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, is before the U.S. Senate. Bush has yet to nominate a successor to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has said that she will retire when her successor is in place.
"Here we go again," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, a religious liberties group that litigates constitutional questions. Wednesday's ruling "emphasizes in a very significant way what is really at stake" with the confirmation hearings, Sekulow said.
"Today's ruling illustrated why we need judges who are umpires applying settled law rather than activists intent on imposing their own ideology," said Mathew D. Staver, head of Liberty Council, a religious liberties group. Roberts has told the Senate that he believes that judges should be umpires, not policymakers.
