In 1940, the
Supreme Court, in
Minersville School District v. Gobitis, ruled that students in public schools, including the respondents in that case—
Jehovah's Witnesses who considered the flag salute to be
idolatry—could be compelled to swear the Pledge. In 1943, in
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Supreme Court reversed its decision. Justice
Robert H. Jackson, writing for the 6 to 3 majority, went beyond simply ruling in the precise matter presented by the case to say that public school students are not required to say the Pledge on narrow grounds, and asserted that such ideological dogmata are antithetical to the principles of the country, concluding with: In 2004, the
11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that students are also not required to stand for the Pledge. ) Requiring or promoting of the Pledge on the part of the government has continued to draw criticism and legal challenges on several grounds. One objection is that a constitutional republic built on freedom of
dissent should not require its citizens to pledge allegiance to it, and that the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right to refrain from speaking or standing, which itself is also a form of speech in the context of the ritual of pledging allegiance. Another criticism is the belief that a government requiring or promoting the phrase "under God" violates protections against the
establishment of religion guaranteed in the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In 2004, linguist
Geoffrey Nunberg said the original supporters of the addition thought that they were simply quoting Lincoln's
Gettysburg Address, but to Lincoln and his contemporaries, "under God" meant "God willing", so they would have found its use in the Pledge of Allegiance grammatically incorrect and semantically odd. In popular culture, the pledge has been mocked or altered by several movies and television series including, but not limited to,
the Simpsons' inscription above the Springfield county courthouse's door of "Liberty and Justice for Most", first appearing in the
twelfth episode of the first season in 1990.
Legal challenges Prominent legal challenges were brought in the 1930s and 1940s by
Jehovah's Witnesses, a denomination whose beliefs preclude swearing loyalty to any power other than God, and who objected to policies in public schools requiring students to swear an oath to the flag. They said requiring the pledge violated their
freedom of religion guaranteed by the
Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The first case was in 1935, when two children,
Lillian and William Gobitis, ages ten and twelve, were expelled from the
Minersville, Pennsylvania, public schools that year for failing to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The issue was finally settled in favor of the Witnesses by the 1943 Supreme Court ruling,
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. In a 2002 case brought by atheist
Michael Newdow, whose daughter was being taught the Pledge in school, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the phrase "under God" an unconstitutional endorsement of monotheism when the Pledge was promoted in public school. In 2004, the
Supreme Court heard
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, an appeal of the ruling, and rejected Newdow's claim on the grounds that he was not the custodial parent, and therefore lacked standing, thus avoiding ruling on the merits of whether the phrase was constitutional in a school-sponsored recitation. On January 3, 2005, a new suit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on behalf of three unnamed families. On September 14, 2005, District Court Judge
Lawrence Karlton ruled in their favor. Citing the precedent of the 2002 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Karlton issued an order stating that, upon proper motion, he would enjoin the school district defendants from continuing their practices of leading children in pledging allegiance to "one Nation under God." In 2006, in the Florida case
Frazier v. Alexandre, a federal district court in Florida ruled that a 1943 state law requiring students to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance violates the
First and
Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. As a result of that decision, a Florida school district was ordered to pay $32,500 to a student who chose not to say the pledge and was ridiculed and called "unpatriotic" by a teacher. In 2009, a
Montgomery County, Maryland, teacher berated and had school police remove a 13-year-old girl who refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom. The student's mother, assisted by the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, sought an apology from the teacher, as state law and the school's student handbook both prohibited students from being forced to recite the Pledge, and a spokesman for the school said that the teacher would have to do so. On March 11, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in the case of
Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District. In a 2–1 decision, the appellate court ruled that the words were of a "ceremonial and patriotic nature" and did not constitute an establishment of religion. On November 12, 2010, in a unanimous decision, the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston affirmed a ruling by a New Hampshire lower federal court which found that the pledge's reference to God does not violate non-pledging students' rights if student participation in the pledge is voluntary. A
United States Supreme Court appeal of this decision was denied on June 13, 2011. In September 2013, a case was brought before the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, arguing that the pledge violates the Equal Rights Amendment of the
Constitution of Massachusetts. In May 2014, Massachusetts' highest court ruled that the pledge does not discriminate against
atheists, saying that the words "under God" represent a patriotic, not a religious, exercise. In February 2015
New Jersey Superior Court Judge
David F. Bauman dismissed a lawsuit, ruling that "… the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the rights of those who don't believe in
God and does not have to be removed from the patriotic message." The case against the
Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District had been brought by a student of the district and the
American Humanist Association that argued that the phrase "under God" in the pledge created a climate of discrimination because it promoted religion, making
non-believers "second-class citizens." In a 21-page decision, Bauman wrote, "Under [the association members'] reasoning, the very constitution under which [the members] seek redress for perceived atheistic marginalization could itself be deemed unconstitutional, an absurd proposition which [association members] do not and cannot advance here." He noted, "As a matter of historical tradition, the words 'under God' can no more be expunged from the national consciousness than the words '
In God We Trust' from every coin in the land, than the words 'so help me God' from every presidential oath since 1789, or than the prayer that has opened every congressional session of legislative business since 1787." == See also ==