Judge Rules Reciting
Pledge in Schools
Is Unconstitutional
By DEAN E. MURPHY,
NYTimes on the Web, September 15, 2005
SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 14 -- A
federal judge in Sacramento ruled Wednesday that reciting the Pledge of
Allegiance in public schools was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion,
once again igniting a firestorm over the appropriateness of the pledge's
reference to "under God."
The judge, Lawrence K. Karlton of Federal District Court, said that the decision
would "satisfy no one involved" in the debate over "the role of religion in the
civil life of this nation," but that he was bound by a ruling in 2002 by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco.
In that ruling, the Ninth Circuit concluded the recitation of the pledge, even
if noncompulsory, "impermissibly coerces a religious act" and "places students
in the untenable position of choosing between participating in an exercise with
religious content or protesting."
The ruling Wednesday was denounced by conservative religious groups that urged
its appeal. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, issued a similar
plea.
Judge Karlton's decision came in a lawsuit brought by Michael Newdow, an atheist
whose daughter attends a public school in Elk Grove, a suburb of Sacramento, and
two families with children in two other school districts in the Sacramento area.
Mr. Newdow lost a similar case last year when the United States Supreme Court
ruled that he had no legal standing to bring the lawsuit because he did not have
custody of his daughter. The justices left open the question of the
pledge's constitutionality, prompting Mr. Newdow to try again with the
additional plaintiffs.
Judge Karlton said that Mr. Newdow still lacked standing, but ruled that the two
families, who were not identified in the lawsuit, were entitled to sue.
Mr. Newdow said that he was disappointed but not surprised by the determination
on his standing, but that the decision on the pledge's constitutionality would
apply to all students in the three school districts.
"It will still affect my child as much as anyone else's," he said in a telephone
interview from El Paso, where he was working at a hospital.
A spokesman for the Elk Grove Unified School District said teachers were
notified Wednesday that they should continue leading students in the pledge
because the judge's ruling did not include an injunction stopping the practice.
Judge Karlton indicated that he would issue an injunction if one was requested,
but Mr. Newdow said that he had not decided whether to seek one.
"I will probably do that, but I have clients now I have to talk to first," said
Mr. Newdow, who is the lawyer in the case in addition to being a doctor.
"Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to read this thing yet."
At a news conference attended by officials from the three districts, Steven M.
Ladd, the Elk Grove superintendent, said that no decision on an appeal had been
made but that he would not be surprised if the schools challenged the ruling "so
as to resolve this matter once and for all."
The Elk Grove district defended itself against the previous lawsuit by Mr.
Newdow. "Our board has long supported the Pledge of Allegiance as an
appropriate patriotic exercise for willing students," Mr. Ladd said. "We
are disappointed that our district, as well as two other school districts listed
in this complaint, need to continue to devote time, energy, and resources to
defend this case. These are resources we could otherwise use on our
mission of teaching and learning."
A lawyer for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a religious rights group
that has joined the school districts in defending the case, said there was no
doubt the ruling would be appealed.
The group's lawyer, Jared N. Leland, said he would not be surprised if the issue
ended up before the Supreme Court, particularly since the Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit last month upheld a law in Virginia that requires the
recitation of the pledge in public schools. That court found that the
pledge was "a patriotic activity" not a religious one.
In the Supreme Court's ruling dismissing Mr. Newdow's previous lawsuit, the
three dissenting justices indicated they would have upheld the constitutionality
of "under God" had the case gone forward. The phrase was added to the
pledge in 1954.
|
