Mayor orders man removed after he didn't stand for Pledge of Allegiance

[Ms. Toad]

134. The highest courts which have reviewed it

(1st Circuit, 9th Circuit) declared the phrase "under God" in the pledge to be of a "ceremonial and patriotic nature" and not an establishment of religion (federal circuit court). In an earlier version of the case which did not reach the merits, the Supreme Court did not opine on whether the phrase turned the exercise into a religious one - but 3 justices separately, in concurring or dissenting opinions, opined that it did not. A fourth recused himself because he had publicly commented to the same effect. The Supreme Court has since declined to hear the appeals from each of the Circuit Courts which held that the phrase "under God" did not make the pledge an establishment of religion. Even though they are from the next tier down, the language used in the Circuit Courts is remarkably similar to the language in the Supreme Court's recent Greece v. Galloway. In addition, the Supreme Court has pretty consistently refused to hear appeals from Circuit Court cases making similar challenges to "In God we Trust" on money - leaving standing the lower court decisions which have treated such phrases as secular.

If the court rules, consistent with the Circuit Courts, that it is not a theocratic declaration (as the Circuit Courts have), (1) there is no violation of the establishment clause by starting meetings with it, and - so long as one is not forced to engage in expressive conduct, no violation of either free speech or the free exercise of religion. If one is forced to stand for what the Supreme Court has declared is a secular pledge, it would be a stretch for them to turn around and agree that forced standing for a secular pledge infringed on the free exercise of religion - rather than the much clearer violation of the free speech clause.