Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> How Appealing

Litigation

: How Appealing

This time, the Ninth Circuit rejects Michael Newdow's challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance

"We are called upon to decide whether the teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, by students in public schools constitutes an establishment of religion prohibited by the United States Constitution. We hold it does not; the Pledge is constitutional." Demonstrating the difference that a new three-judge panel can have, today the majority on a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit -- in a 193-page ruling -- has rejected Dr. Michael Newdow's renewed challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Circuit Judge Carlos T. Bea wrote the majority opinion, in which Senior Circuit Judge Dorothy W. Nelson joined. Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who joined in the Ninth Circuit's original ruling in 2002 declaring the Pledge unconstitutional, issued a dissenting opinion. The majority opinion is 60 pages long, and the dissenting opinion is 133 pages long.

Also worthy of note -- in a separate decision issued today, the same three-judge panel unanimously (although not without criticism from Judge Reinhardt in his separate opinion concurring only in the result) rejects Newdow's challenge to the use of the Nation's motto, "In God we Trust," on United States coins and currency.

In early news coverage, Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News has an update headlined "Appeals court rejects challenge to Pledge of Allegiance in schools."

And Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has a news update headlined "Court: 'Under God' in Pledge is constitutional."

Full post as published by How Appealing on March 11, 2010 (boomark / email).