The challenge to "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (9th Circuit) |
| Current Status: A second Pledge lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on January 3, 2005, resulted in District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton ruling in favor of the Plaintiffs. The Defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Briefing was completed in September, 2006, and oral argument occurred on December 4, 2007. On March 11, 2010, the Court of Appeals panel announced its decision. In an opinion by Judge Bea (joined by Judge Nelson), the Pledge was deemed not to violate the Establishment Clause. Judge Reinhardt wrote a 136 page dissent. Plaintiffs petitioned for a rehearing on April 26, 2010. On May 18, the Court requested responses (to the Plaintiffs' petition) from the Appellants. The Appellants filed their responses on July 8, 2010. Meanwhile, the child plaintiff (RoeChild-2) has changed schools. The Court has been notified of this development in a Motion for Leave to Intervene (filed by two other parent-child sets). The parties now simply wait while the judges consider their options. |
The challenge to "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (1st Circuit) |
| Current Status: A third Pledge lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire in 2007. The District Court judge there ruled against the plaintiffs, and the case is now before the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Briefing at the Court of Appeals was completed on May 5, 2010. Oral argument has been set for September 9, 2010 in Boston, before Chief Judge Sandra Lynch, Judge Jeffrey Howard, and Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson. A decision will likely be rendered perhaps four to six months after that. |
The challenge to "In God We Trust" (9th Circuit) |
| Current Status: A challenge to "In God We Trust" was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on November 18, 2005. The Federal Defendants - along with a "non-profit organization dedicated to defending religious and civil liberties" - filed Motions to Dismiss, which were granted by Judge Frank Damrell on June 12, 2006. An appeal was taken to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 11, 2010, the panel unanimously agreed that Circuit precedent mandated a decision in favor of the government. Plaintiff petitioned for a rehearing on April 26, 2010. The Court has not yet acted on that Petition. |
The challenge to the monotheistic practices of the Presidential Inaugural (D.C. Circuit) |
| Current Status: On December 29, 2008, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging two monotheistic religious practices planned for Barack Obama's inauguration. The first concerns the presidential oath of office, which is prescribed in the Constitution's Article II. With no authorization whatsoever, Chief Justices have taken to adding the purely religious phrase, "so help me God" when administering that oath. This practice is being challenged. Additionally, since 1937, chaplains have been brought in to the inaugural ceremony to give prayers to Jesus and to God. Because such prayers are prohibited under the Establishment Clause, this, too, is being challenged. After a preliminary injunction was denied (as expected) on January 15, the entire case was dismissed (as expected) on March 12, 2009. The District Court's opinion (which decided the case on the basis of lack of standing) was appealed. Briefing in the appeal was completed in October 2009, and oral argument was held in Washington, DC, on December 15. On May 7, the appellate panel ruled 2-1 that the Plaintiffs did not have standing due to a lack of redressability. A petition for rehearing was filed and denied. A petition for certiorari is being filed with the United States Supreme Court. The deadline for that petition is September 27, 2010. Of note is that the issue in this petition is not whether or not the religious activity at the inauguration is constitutional. Rather, it is whether or not there is redressability when the President orders his underlings to violate the Constitution. |
last updated on Sep 02, 2010