Liberty Counsel
NEWS RELEASE

Contact: PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT - 800-671-1776

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 14, 2004

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the United States Supreme Court held, in a unanimous decision, that Michael Newdow, an atheist from California who had challenged the constitutionality of the words “Under God” in the pledge of allegiance, did not have standing to bring his case. The legal effect of the Supreme Court’s ruling is to vacate the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that struck the words “Under God” from the pledge. Liberty Counsel, a nationwide civil liberties legal defense and education organization headquartered in Orlando, Florida, filed an Amicus Brief at the United States Supreme Court in the case.

The Supreme Court decision held that Michael Newdow lacked standing to bring his case because he did not have the legal authority to speak on behalf of his daughter. Mr. Newdow is currently involved in a custody battle with his ex-wife. Justices Rehnquist, Thomas and O’Connor issued a concurring opinion agreeing that Mr. Newdow lacked standing, but also arguing that the phrase “Under God” in the pledge is constitutional.

The legal effect of the Supreme Court’s ruling is to vacate the Ninth Circuit’s earlier decision holding the pledge to be unconstitutional. After today’s ruling, it is as if Mr. Newdow had never brought his case in the courts. Prior to today’s ruling by the Supreme Court, schoolchildren in states covered by the Ninth Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington) were barred from saying the pledge of allegiance with the inclusion of the phrase “Under God.” Now, there is no prohibition against saying the entire pledge in those states.

Mathew Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, stated, “We are pleased that the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision is to uphold the constitutionality of the pledge of allegiance. Schoolchildren in states covered by the Ninth Circuit can now say the entire pledge of allegiance without fear of censorship.” Staver continued, “Justices Rehnquist, Thomas and O’Connor are correct that the pledge of allegiance is constitutional. Our history is not complete without God. If “under God” were removed, many history books and founding documents will be in jeopardy, not the least of which is the Declaration of Independence.”

###