The Supreme Court preserved the phrase "one nation, under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance by ruling June 14 that California atheist Michael Newdow '74 did not have sufficient custody of his daughter to challenge the oath on her behalf.
The court announced its decision on Flag Day, exactly 50 years after Congress added the words "under God" to what had originally been a secular patriotic oath, according to CNN.
The court avoided ruling on the larger question of separation of church and state by dismissing the case on an issue of custody rights, ruling that Newdow, who has partial custody of his daughter, did not have the legal authority to speak for her.
Newdow is involved in a protracted custody battle with the girl's mother, Sandra Banning, whom he never married. A California judge has awarded Newdow partial custody of his daughter but ruled that Banning has "sole custody" to make decisions about the girl's legal and educational rights, according to Law.com.
According to CNN, Banning told the court that she did not object to her daughter reciting the pledge.
Newdow told CNN that "the suggestion that I don't have sufficient custody is just incredible. This is such a blow to parental rights."
Yet according to Assistant Professor of Political Science Corey Brettschneider, the implications of this ruling for parental rights are very narrow.
"This is an issue of standing in cases under federal law and it will likely have no impact aside from issues of standing in such cases," Brettschneider wrote in an e-mail to the Herald.
Brettschneider wrote that Newdow could have claimed to represent his daughter's interests if he had sole custody or if he and Banning were married.
Though Newdow's case was dismissed on a technicality, Brettschneider wrote that the debate surrounding the Pledge of Allegiance has not been resolved and more cases are likely to be filed in the near future.
"The court often will avoid deciding a case on the merits if it can," Brettschneider wrote. "This is especially true in controversial areas such as this, where they avoided the merits by denying that there was standing."
"The substantive issue has still not been resolved and several new cases are about to be filed at trial level that challenge the constitutionality of the pledge."
"In the future litigation around this issue, the plaintiffs will likely either be married or have sole custody to avoid the standing issue," he wrote.
The Supreme Court's decision overturned a ruling made in Newdow's favor two years ago by California's 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The appeals court decision catalyzed a national uproar and would have removed the reference to God from the versions of the pledge recited by approximately 9.6 million schoolchildren in California and other western states, according to CNN.
Brettschneider wrote that what will most likely happen is that the different circuit courts will rule on these new cases and be divided in their decisions. The Supreme Court will then be forced to take the case to resolve the conflict.
"Most of the justices made no comment on the substantive issue," he wrote. "So they have left themselves room to decide either way."
Herald staff writer Danielle Cerny '06 edits the Arts & Culture section. She can be reached at dcerny@browndailyherald.com.
