Editing Pledge of Allegiance (section)

=== 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.<ref>[https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101993016#h=42-47 ''Jehovah's Witnesses-Proclaimers of God's Kingdom'', Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, 1993, pp. 196–197] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200616161314/https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101993016#h=42-47 |date=June 16, 2020 }}.</ref> 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, [[Minersville School District v. Gobitis|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.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Rosenberg |first1=Ian |title=The Fight for Free Speech: Ten Cases That Define Our First Amendment Freedoms |date=2021 |publisher=NYU Press |location=New York |isbn=978-1479801565}}</ref> 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 [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|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 (United States)|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."<ref name=Kraveats2005>{{Citation |url=http://www.chicagodefender.com/page/religion.cfm?ArticleID=2273 |title=Federal judge rules Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional |first=David |last= Kravets |date=September 16, 2005 |access-date = March 31, 2008 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060111132924/http://www.chicagodefender.com/page/religion.cfm?ArticleID=2273 |archive-date = January 11, 2006 |newspaper= [[The Chicago Defender]] }}</ref>

In 2006, in the Florida case ''Frazier v. Alexandre'', a federal district court in Florida ruled that a 1942 state law requiring students to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance violates the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First]] and [[Fourteenth Amendment (United States)|Fourteenth Amendments]] of the U.S. Constitution.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Frazier v. Alexandre |vol=434 |reporter=F.Supp.2d |opinion=1350 |pinpoint= |court=S.D. Fla. |date=May 31, 2006 |url=http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/Legal%20PDfs/Frazier.pdf }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nsba.org/MainMenu/SchoolLaw/Issues/StudentRights/RecentCases/FraziervAlexandreNo0581142SDFlaMay312006.aspx |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110315120026/http://www.nsba.org/MainMenu/SchoolLaw/Issues/StudentRights/RecentCases/FraziervAlexandreNo0581142SDFlaMay312006.aspx |archive-date=March 15, 2011 |title=Frazier v. Alexandre, No. 05-81142 (S.D. Fla. May 31, 2006) |date=March 15, 2011 |publisher=[[National School Boards Association]]}}</ref>

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 and received an apology from the teacher, as state law and the school's student handbook both prohibit students from being forced to recite the Pledge.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/23/AR2010022303889.html |title=Pledge of Allegiance dispute results in Md. teacher having to apologize |last=Johnson |first=Jenna |date=February 24, 2010 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |access-date=February 25, 2010 |archive-date=August 5, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110805063311/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/23/AR2010022303889.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

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''.<ref name="Chea">{{cite web|url=https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j81tOd_mKmXaTFAGfXyGHHUbRloQD9ED0HJO0 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100315150650/https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j81tOd_mKmXaTFAGfXyGHHUbRloQD9ED0HJO0 |archive-date=March 15, 2010|title=Fed. appeals court upholds 'under God' in pledge|last=Chea|first=Terence|date=March 12, 2010|publisher=Associated Press |access-date=March 12, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite court |litigants =Newdow vs. Rio Linda Union School District |vol= |reporter= |opinion= |pinpoint= |court=9th Cir. |date =March 12, 2010 |url=http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/11/05-17257.pdf}}</ref> 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.<ref name="Chea" /> Judge [[Stephen Reinhardt]] dissented, writing that "the state-directed, teacher-led daily recitation in public schools of the amended 'under God' version of the Pledge of Allegiance... violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution."<ref name="latimesappellatecourtruling">{{cite news |url=http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/12/local/la-me-pledge12-2010mar12/2 |title=Pledge of Allegiance's God reference now upheld by court |date=March 12, 2010 |newspaper=LA Times |access-date=January 11, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110116223228/http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/12/local/la-me-pledge12-2010mar12/2 |archive-date=January 16, 2011 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite court |litigants =Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Hanover School District |court=1st Cir. |opinion= |date=November 12, 2010 |url= http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/09-2473P-01A.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110429035804/http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/09-2473P-01A.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date= April 29, 2011 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Court OKs NH law allowing 'God' pledge in schools |first=Denise |last=Lavoie |url=http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/11/15/court_upholds_nh_law_allowing_pledge_in_school |newspaper=The Boston Globe |publisher=Christopher M. Mayer |location=Boston, MA |date=November 15, 2010 |access-date=November 16, 2010 |quote=The constitutionality of a New Hampshire law... |archive-date=November 19, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101119032620/http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/11/15/court_upholds_nh_law_allowing_pledge_in_school/ |url-status=live }}</ref> A [[United States Supreme Court]] appeal of this decision was denied on June 13, 2011.<ref>{{cite news |title=High court spurns atheist's 'under God' challenge |first=Bob |last=Egelko |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/15/BA261JTO2B.DTL |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |publisher=Hearst Corporation |location=San Francisco, CA |date=June 15, 2011 |quote=A Sacramento atheist's challenge to the addition of "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance...}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-1214.htm |title=Freedom From Religion Foundation, Petitioner v. United States, et al. |author=Supreme Court of the United States |date=June 13, 2011 |publisher=Supreme Court of the United States |access-date=June 15, 2011 |archive-date=September 4, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150904064031/http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-1214.htm |url-status=live }}</ref>

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]].<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/04/us/massachusetts-pledge-of-allegiance/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 |title='Under God' part of Pledge of Allegiance under review in Massachusetts |publisher=CNN.com |date=September 4, 2013 |access-date=October 23, 2013 |archive-date=November 5, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131105145629/http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/04/us/massachusetts-pledge-of-allegiance/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 |url-status=live }}</ref> In May 2014, Massachusetts' highest court ruled that the pledge does not discriminate against [[Atheism in the United States|atheists]], saying that the words "under God" represent a patriotic, not a religious, exercise.<ref>{{Cite news|title = Massachusetts court rules 'under God' in pledge does not discriminate against atheists|url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/massachusetts-court-rules-under-god-in-pledge-does-not-discriminate-against-atheists/2014/05/09/62e93ca2-d7b8-11e3-aae8-c2d44bd79778_story.html|newspaper = The Washington Post|date = May 9, 2014|access-date = February 13, 2016|issn = 0190-8286|language = en-US|archive-date = April 25, 2015|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20150425190422/http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/massachusetts-court-rules-under-god-in-pledge-does-not-discriminate-against-atheists/2014/05/09/62e93ca2-d7b8-11e3-aae8-c2d44bd79778_story.html|url-status = live}}</ref>

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 [[Religion in the United States|God]] and does not have to be removed from the patriotic message."<ref name=Spoto>{{cite web |url=http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2015/02/under_god_is_not_discriminatory_and_will_stay_in_p.html |title='Under God' is not discriminatory and will stay in pledge, judge says |website=NJ.com |date=February 7, 2015 |access-date=June 12, 2015 |archive-date=June 13, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150613232314/http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2015/02/under_god_is_not_discriminatory_and_will_stay_in_p.html |url-status=live }}</ref> 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 [[Irreligion|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."<ref name=Spoto/> Bauman said the student could skip the pledge, but upheld a New Jersey law that says pupils must recite the pledge unless they have "conscientious scruples" that do not allow it.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.northjersey.com/news/hearing-under-god-in-pledge-of-allegiance-does-not-violate-rights-of-atheist-students-nj-judge-rules-1.1332137|title=Hearing 'Under God' in Pledge of Allegiance does not violate rights of atheist students, NJ judge rules|first=Salvador|last=Rizzo|website=NorthJersey.com|access-date=February 29, 2016|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160310061721/http://www.northjersey.com/news/hearing-under-god-in-pledge-of-allegiance-does-not-violate-rights-of-atheist-students-nj-judge-rules-1.1332137|archive-date=March 10, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/maureensullivan/2015/02/07/judge-refuses-to-kick-god-out-of-public-schools/#11e06914435f|title=Judge Refuses To Kick God Out Of Public Schools|date=February 7, 2015|magazine=[[Forbes]]|access-date=February 29, 2016|archive-date=February 29, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160229082828/http://www.forbes.com/sites/maureensullivan/2015/02/07/judge-refuses-to-kick-god-out-of-public-schools/#11e06914435f|url-status=live}}</ref> 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."