Law Articles

Return to Law Dictionary Index

Friday, June 9, 2006 - AUSTIN - Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott today filed a �friend of court� brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in California on behalf of all 50 state attorneys general, urging the justices to uphold the Pledge of Allegiance as a constitutional reflection of our national heritage.

�School children across this country have begun their day reciting �one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,� which is a clear and constitutional recognition of our foundation as a great nation,� said Attorney General Abbott.

The voluntary, teacher-led recitation of the Pledge with the words �under God� has been a practice among school children for over 50 years, and it symbolizes the religious heritage inherent in our country�s founding, according to the brief.

The case on appeal from the Eastern District of California is the second such case brought by Michael A. Newdow, who argues that students� recitation of the words �under God� in the Pledge violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution regarding separation of church and state. The Texas Attorney General also filed a brief in support of the Pledge in the earlier case.

The states contend that the Pledge is not a state-sponsored religious display, but is an acknowledgment of patriotism and citizenship. It is a practice that mirrors the Declaration of Independence�s self-evident truths that citizens are �endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.� It is also a recognition that our nation is completely distinguishable from Communist nations in form and function.

Attorney General Abbott elaborated, �From the earliest days of our nation�s founding, we as a people have innately understood our religious heritage as interwoven with all aspects of civil life. Our Constitution has never been interpreted to be in conflict with these precepts or to prohibit such expressions of our nationality.�

The brief strongly argues that instead of conflicting with the First Amendment, the Pledge actually enhances its prescriptions regarding free exercise of religion among all people.

The brief finds consistency with former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O�Connor�s decision in a 1985 case that the reference to God in the Pledge is an acknowledgment of religion with �the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions, [and] expressing confidence in the future.�

While government cannot favor religion over nonreligion � that is, it must remain neutral � by the same token, government cannot display a hostile disregard or indifference toward religious groups, which infers a preference for those who believe in no religion, the brief states.

The brief also notes that the Supreme Court has already found that an �absolutist approach� regarding separation of church and state is unrealistic, and that the Constitution never contemplated a complete walled-off separation of church and state.

The amicus brief is styled Michael A. Newdow, et al. v Rio Linda Unified School District, et al., Cause No. 05-17257.

More resources

Return to Civil Rights

Return to Law Dictionary Index