Sacramento, USA - A federal judge said Monday he is inclined to dismiss part of a lawsuit brought by a Sacramento atheist who claims the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton said he would allow Michael Newdow, a doctor and lawyer, to sue four Sacramento-area school districts where children he is representing attend and recite the pledge. The judge said Newdow could not challenge the pledge itself and the words "under God," which Congress inserted in 1954.
"What I'm doing is cutting out a whole lot of your case and making it narrow," Karlton said during the first hearing on the lawsuit, which is the second over the pledge brought by Newdow.
The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed his first case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing to bring it on behalf of his elementary-aged daughter because he did not have custody of her.
If the judge stands by his comments Monday, Newdow's latest lawsuit would focus strictly on whether reciting the pledge in public schools is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. Even if Newdow were to win on that point, the pledge itself would remain intact.
The judge said Newdow may have a valid point.
"There is nothing whatsoever that requires acknowledging God to love this country," Karlton said.
Terence Cassidy, a lawyer for the Elk Grove Unified School District, urged Karlton to dismiss the case. He said reciting the pledge in school was not about religion, but rather is designed "to teach children about patriotism."
Newdow's lawsuit was filed against the school districts, the state and Congress and seeks to have the entire pledge declared unconstitutional.
After Monday's hearing, he appeared unmoved by the judge's expected narrowing of the lawsuit. He said any decision was likely to be appealed.
Newdow won his initial case more than two years ago before a San Francisco federal appeals court. That court said it was an unconstitutional blending of church and state for public school students to pledge to God.
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the case in June 2004, saying Newdow could not lawfully sue because he did not have custody of his daughter and because the girl's mother objected to the lawsuit. Newdow and the mother were never married.
Eight co-plaintiffs have joined the latest lawsuit, all of whom are children or custodial parents who have filed the suit on behalf of their children, Newdow said. The plaintiffs' names have been withheld from the suit for fear of physical harm.
"We're a despised minority," Newdow told the judge.
When the Supreme Court dismissed his previous case, three justices - Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas - made clear they would have upheld the religious reference Congress inserted into the pledge in 1954. A fourth justice, Antonin Scalia, removed himself from the case after making off-the-bench remarks that seemed to telegraph his view that the pledge is constitutional.
Karlton did not indicate when he would issue a written ruling.
The case is Newdow v. Congress, 05-00017.