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. Now there is nothing to do but wait for the three-judge panel (comprised of Hon. Dorothy W. Nelson, Hon. Stephen Reinhardt and Hon. Carlos T. Bea) to issue its opinion(s). That will occur whenever the judges feel they are ready. If you are interested in checking for yourself, the Ninth Circuit's opinions are listed by 10:00 am (Pacific Time) every day at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/. It might be noted that there are two Establishment Clause cases in the process of being decided that may delay a decision in this Pledge litigation even further. In the Ninth Circuit, there is an en banc case: Catholic League v. San Francisco. In the U.S. Supreme Court, there is Salazar v. Buono. The Catholic League en banc panel may choose to wait for the Salazar decision to be announced before issuing it own opinion. Similarly, the panel hearing the Pledge case may choose to wait for the Catholic League decision before ruling on the Pledge. Accordingly, a decision in our Pledge case may still be many months in the future. Additionally, the case of Nunez v. Holder might be noted. The majority decision in that case was authored by Judge Reinhardt. Although Nunez was argued on April 19, 2007, the opinion was not filed until February 10, 2010. |
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 us, and the case is now before the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The Opening Brief of the Plaintiffs-Appellants was filed on February 1, 2010. The Respondents' Briefs are due on April 7, 2010. After service of the Respondents' Briefs, the Plaintiffs-Appellants will have fourteen days to file a Reply Brief, which will conclude the briefing. Sometime thereafter - likely sometime in June or July - oral argument will occur. A decision will probably be rendered some 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. Briefing was completed in December, 2006, and oral argument occurred on December 4, 2007. Now there is nothing to do but wait for the three-judge panel (comprised of Hon. Dorothy W. Nelson, Hon. Stephen Reinhardt and Hon. Carlos T. Bea) to issue its opinion(s). That will occur whenever the judges feel they are ready. If you are interested in checking for yourself, the Ninth Circuit's opinions are listed by 10:00 am (Pacific Time) every day at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/. It might be noted that there are two Establishment Clause cases in the process of being decided that may delay a decision in this Pledge litigation even further. In the Ninth Circuit, there is an en banc case: Catholic League v. San Francisco. In the U.S. Supreme Court, there is Salazar v. Buono. The Catholic League en banc panel may choose to wait for the Salazar decision to be announced before issuing it own opinion. Similarly, the panel hearing the Pledge case may choose to wait for the Catholic League decision before ruling on the Pledge. Accordingly, a decision in our Pledge case may still be many months in the future. Additionally, the case of Nunez v. Holder might be noted. The majority decision in that case was authored by Judge Reinhardt. Although Nunez was argued on April 19, 2007, the opinion was not filed until February 10, 2010. |
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. A decision from the appellate panel is now pending. |
last updated on Feb 20, 2010