Yesterday in Newdow v. Congress of the United States, the United States district court for the Eastern District of California held that the Ninth Circuit's prior decision finding that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public school classrooms violates the Establishment Clause is binding on the district court. That decision, questioning the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge, was subsequently reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court because the plaintiff, Michael Newdow, lacked standing. Now the district court applies the prior 9th Circuit holding on the merits in an extremely narrow manner.
First the district court denied standing to Michael Newdow, but found that the other plaintiffs who are parents of school children had standing. On the merits, it held that teacher-led recitation the Pledge in school classrooms violates the Establishment Clause because of the pressure placed on students to recite it, but that reciting the Pledge at school board meetings does not create the same kind of coercion. Finally, in an interesting twist, the Court held that since it stands ready, if requested, to enjoin the recitation of the Pledge in classrooms, the parents who are plaintiffs no longer have any injury in fact. Therefore, their challenge to the constitutionality of 4 U.S.C. Sec. 4, which codifies the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance, is rendered moot.
The New York Times today reports that teachers in the Elk Grove Unified School District, one of the Districts involved in the lawsuit, were told to continue leading students in the pledge because the judge's ruling did not include an injunction.
