A California federal judge yesterday ruled it is unconstitutional to require children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton’s ruling came in a revised lawsuit brought by Michael Newdow, an atheist whose first bid to remove the words “under God” from the pledge was rejected last year by the Supreme Court.
“The pledge is an unconstitutional violation of the children’s right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God,” Judge Karlton wrote in yesterday’s decision.
Three Sacramento-area school districts were named in the retooled suit, which features a new set of plaintiffs, including the atheist parents of a seventh-grader and the divorced atheist parent of a third-grader and a kindergartner.
Judge Karlton, 70, was appointed to the court in 1979 by President Carter. The judge cited a 2003 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals “that the school districts’ policies violate the establishment clause” as the reason for his decision.
A jubilant Mr. Newdow hailed the news.
“I’m excited,” he said in an interview. “It’s good now that the judge has agreed with me and that the Constitution was upheld. We’ll see how long that lasts.”
The judge also told Mr. Newdow he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda Union and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts, where the plaintiffs’ children attend.
Mr. Newdow promised he’d file a restraining order soon.
House and Senate Republicans criticized Judge Karlton’s ruling.
“The Pledge of Allegiance is a vital, ennobling part of our national identity, and the American people resoundingly support its value in the education of our children,” said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas. “The ruling is wrong, period, and I look forward to its reversal.”
“This is yet another example of an irresponsible decision by a liberal activist judge unable to separate personal politics from public service,” said Sen. John Thune, South Dakota Republican. “As we work to fill two vacancies in the highest court of the land, today’s news only serves to underscore the importance of appointing judicial nominees who refuse to allow their personal views to shape decisions.”
During oral arguments for the case in July, Judge Karlton threw out several parts of Mr. Newdow’s revised lawsuit, saying the plaintiff’s argument that the entire pledge is unconstitutional would not make it past a higher court. Rather, the judge said, the case should focus on whether saying the pledge in public schools is an unacceptable endorsement of religion.
Derek Gaubatz, director of litigation for the Becket Fund, a religious liberties group opposing Mr. Newdow, described the judge as an “old-time liberal.”
“He telegraphed to everyone how he wanted to rule,” Mr. Gaubatz said. “He wanted to strike the pledge down, but he wanted to rely on the prior 9th Circuit decision so they could do his dirty work.”View Entire Story
By John Solomon
How the government's punishing of the exposure of official wrongdoing can linger for years
Independent voices from the TWT Communities
A carefully guided tour through the confusing world of modern bookselling and publishing.
“Right Angles” explores serious subjects, such as the Islamization of the Middle East and delegitimization of Israel, with humor, candor and a twist.
Columns from Voices around the World talking about the events, people, politics and social issues that concern us wherever, and whoever, we are.
Weekly agitation from a columnist who many believed to be one of the least likely to become known as a Conservative Republican.
Benghazi: The anatomy of a scandal
Vietnam Memorial adds four names
Cinco de Mayo on the Mall
NRA kicks off annual convention