A federal appeals court judge stayed enforcement Tuesday of the
court’s ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional,
pending an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
A federal appeals court judge stayed enforcement Tuesday of the court’s ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, pending an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Judge Alfred T. Goodwin issued the order in response to a request from the Elk Grove Unified School District near Sacramento. The daughter of the man whose lawsuit led the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to find the pledge unconstitutional attends school there.
San Benito County Superintendent of Schools Tim Foley said local schools would stop reciting the pledge if told to do so, but he doesn’t think the March 10 deadline will come to fruition.
“I don’t think there will be any action until it goes to the final reaches of the justice system,” Foley said. “We can’t let a mundane thing like this distract us. You know how slowly our court system grinds.”
Had Goodwin not issued the order, public schools in nine western states would have been prohibited – beginning Monday – from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance with its reference to “under God.” Those states are Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Montana, Oregon and Washington.
The stay gives the school district 90 days to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the ruling.
Without the stay, public school students would have had to stop reciting the pledge Monday, March 10. The ban would have affected 9.6 million students in the nine states, 6 million in California and 11,000 in San Benito County.
Local students say reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is something they’ve done every day in school since they can remember.
“It’s something that has just become normal,” said Spenser Genesy, a San Benito High School sophomore. “It’s become a cycle.”
Genesy said he thinks students should be allowed to say the pledge with or without the words “under God.” He said he knows of some students who change the phrase to “under a higher being” or some who say the pledge without saying the two words in question.
“It’s (the pledge) a sign of respect toward our country – especially with the war and people over in the Middle East, it’s important to pay our respect to them,” Genesy said. “If people don’t want to say it, they don’t need to.”
Genesy sees the debate as one between freedom of speech and separation of church and state. He said people who want to should just take out “under God” instead of banning the entire pledge.
If the U.S. Supreme Court decides to hear the case, many experts say there are not enough votes on the bench to support the 9th Circuit Court’s decision.
The phrase “under God” was added to the pledge in 1954 through a federal law amid a Cold War push to distinguish the United States from an atheistic Soviet Union.
SBHS senior Mohammad Huweih, a Muslim, said he does not say the Pledge of Allegiance, but not because of the words “under God.”
“I don’t mind those words – I believe in God,” Huweih said. “I don’t say it. I object to what it says. Everything it says is not true. The U.S. doesn’t represent what people think it does anymore.”
Huweih disagrees with the phrase “with liberty and justice for all” because he believes that all U.S. citizens are not granted those qualities. He said he has felt that more so since Sept. 11, 2001 because of the increase in racial profiling in America.
Huweih also thinks the fight over the pledge is a waste of time.
“The courts are wasting their time on a stupid thing,” he said. “How many seconds of our day does it take up? Five or six seconds? It’s tradition – people don’t have to say it.”
In June and again last Friday, the San Francisco-based appeals court ruled that the pledge is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion when recited in public schools.
The Elk Grove district was the target of a lawsuit that transformed the pledge into a federal court case. Michael Newdow, a Sacramento atheist, sued the schools in 2000, alleging that his daughter shouldn’t be subjected to collective recitations of the pledge.
California law requires schools to conduct a patriotic observance at the beginning of each school day. Elk Grove officials had said they would have students sing the national anthem instead of reciting the pledge if the appeals court did not stay its ruling.
Dave Gordon, superintendent of the Elk Grove Unified School District, said, “It’s very good news, because we want to see the matter heard before the Supreme Court, and we want our children to keep saying the pledge as written until such time as the Supreme Court rules.”
Gordon said the district intends to file a request with the Supreme Court to hear its case by the end of April.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
