WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 (UPI) -- A federal appeals court in San Francisco Friday refused to review a ruling that declares the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional.
The full U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected review of a 2-1 decision by one of its three-judge panels last summer. The full court had been asked to rehear the case "en banc," or with all of its judges sitting.
The Justice Department did not immediately say whether it would take the case to the Supreme Court of the United States, but a statement issued by Attorney General John Ashcroft left little doubt about his intent.
"For centuries our nation has referenced God as we have expressed our patriotism and national identity in our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, national anthem, on our coins, and in the Gettysburg Address," Ashcroft said. "The Supreme Court of the United States opens each session by saying, 'God save this honorable Court.'"
The "department will spare no effort to preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American flag," Ashcroft added. "We will defend the ability of Americans to declare their patriotism through the time-honored tradition of voluntarily reciting the pledge."
Under a normal schedule, the Supreme Court would not have time to hear the case this term, unless it accepts it on an expedited basis.
The phrase "under God" was added to the pledge only in 1954. Since then, millions of American schoolchildren have started classes by reciting the pledge with those words, despite the traditional separation of church and state in the United States.
The lawsuit challenging the phrase was brought in Sacramento, Calif., by Michael Newdow on behalf of his school-age daughter.
Friday, Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt issued a lengthy opinion defending the refusal. Reinhardt said the full circuit court was not obligated to rehear a case because of its importance.
"The most reasonable construction of the rule is that the court should rehear a case en banc when it is both of exceptional importance and the issue requires correction," Reinhardt said.
In the original panel ruling, Circuit Judge Ferdinand Fernandez agreed with most of the majority, but dissented to the actual judgment.
Fernandez cited the concept of "de minimis" -- something is so small that it doesn't make a difference.
Injecting the phrase "under God" does not go a long way toward fostering religion, he said.
"I cannot accept the eliding of the simple phrase 'under God' from our Pledge of Allegiance in any setting," Fernandez wrote, "when it is obvious that its tendency to establish religion in this country or to interfere with the free exercise (or non-exercise) of religion is de minimis."
