Federal Judge Declares Pledge of Allegiance Unconstitutional

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled today that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause (see AP story below).

I have glanced over Judge Karlton's opinion. His ruling is based on the fact that the Supreme Court found in the previous case involving atheist Michael Newdow that the plaintiff did not have "prudential" standing, but did hold that Newdow did have Article III standing. Citing caselaw authority, Judge Karlton concluded that a case that is dismissed by reason of a lack of prudential standing is still considered precedential if it earlier reached the merits. Therefore, the Judge concluded that he was still bound by Ninth Circuit precedent, which found the pledge unconstitutional.

The real issue here is the activist Ninth Circuit rather than Judge Karlton. If we are going to apply neutral principles when labeling which judges are "activist," one might say that Karlton was merely trying to avoid being reversed by the Ninth Circuit. According to the structure of the judiciary, the federal judge's authority is trumped by the appellate court.

* * *

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.