June 14 (Bloomberg) -- Public school teachers can continue to lead recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase ``under God,'' as the U.S. Supreme Court threw out a challenge to the practice by a California atheist.

The justices' 8-0 ruling came on Flag Day, 50 years after Congress added ``under God'' to the pledge. The court overturned a lower court decision that said a California school district violated the U.S. Constitution's separation of church and state by requiring teachers to lead the pledge. The justices didn't decide whether the pledge was constitutional. Instead, they said a California man lacked the right to bring the challenge.

The ruling may quell the firestorm that erupted after a June 2002 decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That decision drew near-universal condemnation from politicians in Washington. Forty-three states have laws either authorizing or requiring public schools to lead students in the Pledge of Allegiance.

``The Pledge of Allegiance and the words `under God' can continue to be recited by students across America,'' said Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, which filed a court brief supporting the pledge. Though the court didn't rule on the constitutionality of the pledge, he said it ``removed a dark cloud that has been hanging over one of the nation's most important and cherished traditions.''

`Patriotic Invocations'

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas voted to uphold the use of ``under God'' in the pledge as a constitutional matter, an issue that the majority of the court didn't reach.

``The phrase `under God' in the pledge seems, as a historical matter, to sum up the attitude of the nation's leaders,'' Rehnquist wrote for himself and O'Connor. ``Examples of patriotic invocations of God and official acknowledgements of religion's role in our nation's history abound.''

Five justices said California atheist Michael Newdow lacked the legal right to go to court to challenge daily recitations of the pledge at his daughter's school.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court that Newdow lacked the right to bring the case because a California court had ruled that he couldn't sue on his daughter's behalf. Newdow isn't married to his daughter's mother, and though the parents share custody, the mother has been given the right to make final decisions on the daughter's behalf.

``The prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand'' in such cases, Stevens wrote. His opinion was joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Affirmation of Belief

Newdow didn't immediately return a call seeking comment on the decision. He took the unusual step of arguing his own case to the high court in March.

``Every school morning, my daughter is asked to stand up, put her hand on her heart and say that her father is wrong,'' he told the justices during the argument.

Newdow had sought to distinguish the pledge from other public references to a deity, including the phrase ``In God We Trust,'' which appears on U.S. currency. He said the pledge was problematic because it required an affirmation of belief.

He argued that daily recitation of the pledge with the ``under God'' phrase unconstitutionally interferes with his right to rear his daughter, a grammar school student in Sacramento, according to his beliefs.

Administration Position

The Bush administration defended the use of the ``one nation under God'' phrase, saying it acknowledged the role that faith has played in the formation of the country.

The Pledge of Allegiance was adopted by Congress in 1942 without the ``under God'' reference. A year later, in a case involving Jehovah's Witnesses, the Supreme Court ruled that public schools can't require children to recite the pledge.

In 1954 Congress voted to add the reference to God, citing a need to ``deny the atheistic and materialistic concepts of communism.''

O'Connor wrote separately today that Newdow's challenge was a ``well-intentioned one, but his distaste for the reference to `one nation under God,' however sincere, cannot be the yardstick of our establishment clause inquiry.''

``Certain ceremonial references to God and religion in our nation are the inevitable consequence of the religious history that gave birth to our founding principles of liberty,'' O'Connor said.

Justice Antonin Scalia didn't participate in the case. He removed himself after being quoted in media reports as criticizing the appeals court decision.

The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 02- 1624.

To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr at gstohr@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: June 14, 2004 11:49 EDT