Positive outcome expected in Supreme Court Pledge case

WASHINGTON (BP)--At least some lawyers who support the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance left the March 24 oral arguments at the Supreme Court confident the justices will deliver an easy win for their side.

Jan LaRue, chief counsel of Concerned Women for America, told Baptist Press she believes it will be “seven-one, maybe eight-zero to uphold the Pledge.”

The ruling in support of the pledge “could even be unanimous,” Jordan Lorence of the Alliance Defense Fund told Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink.

If they are wrong, Southern Baptist church-state specialist Richard Land has a prediction for what would happen next.

“I expect the court to uphold the Pledge as constitutional. If it strikes down the Pledge, we will witness the fastest ratification of an amendment to the Constitution in American history,” said Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “Such an amendment, which would guarantee Americans’ right to use the phrase ‘under God’ in our national pledge and ‘In God We Trust’ as our national motto, would surf the crest of a wave of overwhelming public outrage to rapid ratification.”

The justices heard arguments about whether the words “under God,” which about 90 percent of Americans believe should remain in the Pledge, constitute an unconstitutional establishment of religion when recited by elementary students in a California school district.

Michael Newdow, an atheist who sued the Elk Grove (Calif.) Unified School District and argued in his own behalf, urged the justices to uphold the opinion of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that inclusion of “under God” violates the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion. Congress added the phrase to the pledge in 1954. Meanwhile, U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and a lawyer for the school district argued for the high court to reverse the appeals court. Fourteen Supreme Court justices have indicated the “pledge is not a religious exercise” but a “ceremonial reference,” Olson told the court.

Newdow’s case did not find a receptive audience during his 30 minutes to argue, LaRue and Lorence said.

Different justices reminded Newdow of other government acknowledgments of religion, LaRue said, such as the motto “In God We Trust” on coins and the opening of each session of the Supreme Court, in which the marshal says, “God save the United States and this honorable court!” They also reminded Newdow his daughter, who is in the fourth grade in an Elk Grove school, is not required to recite the pledge.

“What’s the beef?” LaRue said the justices seemed to be saying. “That’s light years from government establishing or endorsing or coercing religious expression.”

One of the opponents of retaining the reference to God in the pledge told reporters outside the court he was still hopeful. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said he has “come to know, as many of you have, that oral arguments are not the sole basis for making decisions.  And, I think that when people look at this issue, including all the briefs, one more time, it will be clear that this is an affirmation of religion. You know, if the words ‘under God’ do not have religious significance, then I literally don’t know what words do.”

The ERLC’s Land, who was out of the country when the arguments were held, said, “To argue that the phrase ‘under God’ in a voluntary Pledge of Allegiance in the public schools is a de facto establishment of religion or in any way, shape or form violates the establishment clause is dangerous nonsense that would require the expunging of all mention of God from all public places, including public officials saying ‘God bless America.’”

In addition to determining whether a school district can require teachers to lead “willing students” to recite the Pledge with “under God” in it, the court also will weigh whether Newdow even has legal standing to bring a court challenge.

A decision in the case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, is expected before the court adjourns in late June or early July