Nearly six years after the Ninth U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals last heard arguments in a case challenging the
constitutionality of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance,
an identical challenge was once again before the court on December 4,
2007. This time, however, Knights of Columbus were direct participants
in the case-“defendant intervenors” – and played a significant part in
the arguments before the three judge panel.
The latest court challenge was filed in
January 2005 by atheist Michael Newdow, just months after the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that he did not have standing to file his earlier
suit. Within a few months, the Order, along with seven individual
Knights whose children attended the Sacramento-area school districts
being sued, asked the federal district court in Sacramento to join the
case as defendant intervenors, on grounds that having been largely
responsible for the campaign that helped put the words "under God" in
the pledge in 1954, the Order's interests were directly implicated. The
district judge granted the motion.
The case is now entitled
Newdow v. Carey. John Carey, a Knight from Elk Grove, Calif., is
part of the official caption of the lawsuit. Cary, his wife Adrienne and
their sons Brenden and Spencer all attended the hearing at the federal
courthouse in San Francisco.
The Order is represented in
the case by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public interest law
firm based in Washington, D.C. Kevin J. Hasson, Becket Fund founder and
president, delivered oral arguments on behalf of the Knights, to which
he belongs.
In the previous case, the
Order filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief with the
Supreme Court, as did many other organizations.
In this case, more than a
dozen amicus briefs totaling thousands of pages have been filed
with the appeals court on behalf of 20 organizations and the governments
of all 50 states. Hasson says the fact that the Order is a party to the
lawsuit this time around is very important. "It's not likely that the
judges will read thousands of pages of writing, hut if you're standing
right there in front of them, looking them in the eye and saying, 'You
have to think about this,' they have to think about it."
"The whole idea of 'one nation
under God' comes from our conviction that our rights come from God and
are therefore beyond the reach of the state, rather than coming as some
kind of gift from the state," Hasson said. God, in this sense, is the
Creator who is the source of our natural rights, and the question of its
constitutionality is thus a matter of philosophy, not theology, he told
the court.
A decision in the case is
expected sometime next spring.
Copied from KnightLine
December 17, 2007