September 14, 2005

(Washington, DC) – The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), focusing on constitutional law, today called a federal district court decision in California declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional a flawed decision that underscores the importance of who serves on the Supreme Court of the United States.  In 2004, the high court dismissed a suit brought by California atheist Michael Newdow, who is currently challenging the Pledge in the California case where a decision was issued today.

“This decision is legally flawed and we’re hopeful that the decision ultimately will be overturned,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, which supports the Pledge and filed in the Supreme Court case.  “This is another example of a federal district court exhibiting hostility toward a time-honored tradition which has been defended by numerous Justices including Justice O’Connor who said eliminating such references ‘would sever ties to a history that sustains this nation even today.’ This decision underscores the importance of the federal judiciary and who serves on the Supreme Court of the United States.  The Pledge clearly acknowledges the fact that our freedoms in this country come from God, not government and we’re hopeful this flawed decision will ultimately be rejected.”

In dismissing the suit in 2004, the high court rejected a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declaring the phrase “under God” in the Pledge unconstitutional.  In addressing the constitutionality of the Pledge, Justice O’Connor concluded: “It is unsurprising that a Nation founded by religious refugees and dedicated to religious freedom should find references to divinity in its symbols, songs, mottoes, and oaths.  Eradicating such references would sever ties to a history that sustains this Nation even today.”

Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice is based in Washington, D.C.