Back to Court to Protect the Pledge

We've filed an amicus brief in a closely-watched case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit involving a challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance and the words "under God."  We represent more than 40 members of Congress and more than 80,000 Americans who signed on to our Committee to Protect "Under God."

As you may recall, in the fall of 2009, a federal district court in New Hampshire rejected a legal challenge brought by the Freedom From Religion Foundation targeting a New Hampshire statute that permitted students to voluntarily recite the Pledge in school.  The federal district court concluded that the statute has "a secular legislative purpose."  The court also determined that the statute was "enacted to enhance instruction in the Nation's history, and foster a sense of patriotism. Its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion. It does not foster excessive government involvement with religion."

However, the Freedom From Religion Foundation has appealed to the First Circuit and in our amicus brief filed today, we told the appeals court that "including the words 'one Nation under God' in the Pledge does not violate the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment."   The brief states:  "These words echo the sentiments found in the Declaration of Independence and recognize the truth that our freedoms come from God. These words were placed in the Pledge to reaffirm Americas unique understanding of this truth. The United States is different from nations who recognize no higher authority than the State. While the First Amendment affords atheists freedom to disbelieve, it does not compel the federal judiciary to redact religious references in every area of public life to suit atheistic sensibilities."

The fact is there is absolutely no legal reason to strike the words 'under God' from the Pledge and reject this time-honored tradition.  Once again this is nothing more than another futile attempt to rewrite history - a legal challenge that has no merit and should be rejected by the appeals court.  The fact is the federal district court understood the fact that there's no constitutional crisis in permitting public school students to voluntarily recite the Pledge - an expression of patriotism.  That's exactly why we're urging the appeals court to uphold the very sound decision reached by the federal district court.

We filed our amicus brief today with the First Circuit on behalf of 42 members of the 111th Congress - including two U.S. Senators - Sam Brownback and James Inhofe and 40 members of the U.S. House of Representatives:  Robert Aderholt, Todd Akin, Rodney Alexander, Gresham Barrett, Roscoe Bartlett, Rob Bishop, Marsha Blackburn, Roy Blunt, Ken Calvert, Tom Cole, John Abney Culberson, Mario Diaz-Balart, Jeff Flake, Randy Forbes, Trent Franks, Scott Garrett, Phil Gingrey, Jeb Hensarling, Wally Herger, Peter Hoekstra, Walter Jones, Steve King, Jack Kingston, John Kline, Frank Lucas, John McHugh, Donald Manzullo, Jim Marshall, Gary Miller, Jeff Miller, Sue Wilkins Myrick, Mike Pence, Joseph Pitts, Pete Sessions, John Shadegg, John Shimkus, Mark Souder, John Sullivan, Lee Terry, and Joe Wilson.

At the same time, the we represent more than 80,000 Americans who signed on to the ACLJ's Committee to Protect "Under God" - including many parents of school-age children who attend public schools and desire to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in its entirety.

In our brief we also argue that the "Plaintiffs' strategy to purge all religious observances and references from American public life must not be permitted to advance. If Plaintiffs are successful, it will undoubtedly embolden further challenges to other religious expressions in government venues . . ."

You can read our friend-of-the-court brief here.

The New Hampshire case now before the First Circuit appeals court comes just one month after a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the Pledge and the National Motto - "In God We Trust" - displayed on U.S. currency.   In the Pledge case, the federal appeals court concluded that "the Pledge is one of allegiance to our Republic, not of allegiance to God or to any religion. Furthermore, Congress' ostensible and predominant purpose when it enacted and amended the Pledge over time was patriotic, not religious."  The ACLJ filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit in the National Motto case representing nearly 50 members of Congress. 

Additionally, the ACLJ is currently involved in a national case in which displays of the National Motto and Pledge are being challenged in the Capitol Visitors Center in Washington, D.C.  In that case, the ACLJ represents 50 members of Congress in its amicus brief and is urging a federal court to uphold the constitutionality of those displays. Additional details of that case are here. 

We'll keep you posted on the outcome of the New Hampshire case and the case underway at the Capitol Visitors Center as well.