The challenge to "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (9th Circuit) |
| Current Status: After the Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that - for "prudential" reasons - the federal courts should not have heard the challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance in the Elk Grove case, a second Pledge lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. That filing occurred on January 3, 2005, and resulted in a ruling in favor of the Plaintiffs. The Defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which - in an opinion written by Judge Carlos Bea (joined by Judge Dorothy Nelson) - reversed the District Court. In other words, the Pledge was deemed not to violate the Establishment Clause. Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote a 136 page dissent. Plaintiffs petitioned for a rehearing on April 26, 2010. On October 8, 2010, the petition for rehearing was denied. A Petition for Certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court on January 6, 2011. It was argued that circumstances had arisen that required the Court to reverse or vacate the appellate decision. Alternatively, a grant of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' holding was requested. For reasons that are best not divulged, we have not been able to provide the required materials to the Supreme Court. Accordingly, this case is now over. |
The challenge to "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (1st Circuit) |
| Current Status: One further 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 at the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Briefing at the Court of Appeals was completed on May 5, 2010. Oral argument took place on September 9, 2010 in Boston, before Chief Judge Sandra Lynch, Judge Jeffrey Howard, and Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson. That panel ruled in favor of the Defendants on November 12, 2010. A petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied on December 28, 2010. A Petition for Certiorari was filed in the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the petition was denied and the case is now over. |
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 denied that petition on October 8, 2010. A Petition for Certiorari was filed on January 4, 2011. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on March 7, 2011. This case, therefore, is now over. |
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 the two monotheistic religious practices that occur at presidential inaugurations. 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. The second challenged practice is that which has occurred since 1937: chaplains brought in to the inaugural ceremony to give prayers to Jesus and to God. The District Court ruled against the Plaintiffs on March 12, 2009, and an appeal was taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Briefing in the appeal was completed in October 2009, and oral argument was held in Washington, DC, on December 15. On May 7, 2010, 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 has been filed with the United States Supreme Court. 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. The Supreme Court has denied the petition for certiorari. Thus, the case is now over. Furthermore, because of the standing decision in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - which is the proper Circuit in which to bring this challenge - there is really no way to bring this case again. Thus, from now on, it appears that the Chief Justice of the United States (the personification of the rule of law and devotion to the words of the Constitution) will continue the practice of altering those words every four years in a manner contrary to the first ten words of the Bill of Rights. |
last updated on Jun 23, 2011