As a result of a June 14 Supreme Court decision, children in U.S. public schools can say "under God" during the Pledge of Allegiance --- at least for now.

The nation's highest court threw out a California atheist's challenge to the "under God" phrase June 14, saying the man had insufficient legal standing to sue. In an 8-0 decision the court reversed a 2002 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had declared that it was unconstitutional to recite the pledge in public schools if the reference to God remained in it.

The court split, 5-3, however, on reasons for reversing the lower court.

Five justices, in a ruling written by Justice John Paul Stevens, said the plaintiff, Dr. Michael Newdow, lacked legal standing to challenge the pledge in court on behalf of his daughter, over whom he did not have legal custody at the time. Since he lacked standing, there was no need to address the case on its constitutional merits.

The other three --- Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas --- said they believed Newdow had standing and the case should have been tried on its merits. But all three agreed that the pledge is constitutional as it stands, so they concurred with the majority in reversing the 9th Circuit decision.

Writing the first concurring opinion, Rehnquist said, "The Constitution only requires that schoolchildren be entitled to abstain from the (pledge) ceremony if they chose to do so. To give the parent of such a child a sort of 'heckler's veto' over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase 'under God,' is an unwarranted extension of the Establishment Clause."

Justice Antonin Scalia recused himself from the case when it came before the high court last October. He had publicly criticized the 9th Circuit decision before it was appealed to the Supreme Court.

The case at issue was Elk Grove Unified School District vs. Newdow. It aroused a national furor in 2002 when the 9th Circuit ruled 2-1 that when the pledge is recited in public schools its reference to God is "an impermissible government endorsement of religion."

Newdow and Sandra Banning, the girl's mother, shared physical custody of their daughter but Banning had sole legal custody at the time. Banning said she and her daughter are Christian and neither shares Newdow's objection to the pledge's reference to God.

Anthony R. Picarello, vice president and general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, told Catholic News Service, "The Pledge of Allegiance is safe for now. Whether it's safe for the long term probably depends on the (upcoming presidential) election."

The Becket Fund, on behalf of the Knights of Columbus, had filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Supreme Court to find the pledge constitutional in its current wording.

"One might reasonably predict that another atheist who does have unquestionable custody over his child will bring another suit like this in very short order," Picarello said, but "it takes a long time for it to percolate up through the courts."

By the time it reaches the Supreme Court again, one or more of the current justices may have left, and his or her successor will be a nominee of the next president, he added.

Summarizing his reaction to the Newdow decision Picarello used a baseball metaphor. "You win some, you lose some and some get rained out," he said. "This one got rained out, but sooner or later the court will have to face the basic issue."

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, which also filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging a reversal of the appellate ruling, said, "It really doesn't matter that the Supreme Court did not address the merits of the case. The fact is the legally flawed decision of the appeals court is removed and students across America can begin the new school year in the fall by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance including the phrase 'under God.'"

By dismissing the case, he added, "the Supreme Court has removed a dark cloud that has been hanging over one of the nation's most important and cherished traditions --- the ability of students across the nation to acknowledge the fact that our freedoms in this country come from God, not government."

The pledge reads: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

First introduced in a slightly different form by a popular youth magazine in 1892, the pledge had gained wide usage already when Congress formally introduced it into law in 1942 in the form of a joint resolution codifying "rules and customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag."

In its earlier forms and the 1942 official version the pledge did not include the words "under God." Those were inserted by an act of Congress in 1954 following a campaign by U.S. fraternal organizations in which the Knights of Columbus played a major role.

Supreme Knight Carl Anderson praised the high court ruling, saying it will allow schoolchildren to "recite the Pledge of Allegiance -- the entire pledge -- without fear of being muzzled by a federal court."

The Knights-Becket Fund brief had argued that the pledge, like the Declaration of Independence, is "a statement of political philosophy, not theology." It said that philosophy was based on the premise that human rights cannot be taken away by the state because they come from the Creator and "exist prior to the state."

Anderson said the "under God" phrase in the pledge expresses "the fundamental truth first expressed in our Declaration of Independence, that we 'are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.'"

William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, welcomed the decision but said, "It is too bad that the substantive issue of whether recitations of the pledge in school are legal wasn't addressed."

"It is regrettable only because there is a concerted effort in this country, led by organizations that are openly hostile to religion, to eliminate all public vestiges of our religious heritage," he said.

The American Humanist Association said it was organizing a rally outside the Supreme Court building to protest the decision.

---CNS