I'm sure you'll all get a kick out of this. For our Spring Appellate Brief competition, the first year class is going to be arguing the Pledge of Allegiance case. If you didn't hear about it last year, it's basically an atheist on a crusade who has been attempting to remove "under God" from the Pledge, claiming that it's unconstitutional because it violates the Establishment clause. The Establishment clause says that Congress isn't supposed to make any law that would "establish" a religion, i.e. endorse, encourage, promote, etc.

Specifically though, he alleges that it violates his constitutional rights because the Pledge is led by teachers in his daughter's public school each morning. Not only does it "indoctrinate" his daughter (who, according to her mother who has legal custody of her, is a Christian) but it also "alienates" him (in the oh-so-very-likely event that he'll be present) and makes him feel like an outsider, that his beliefs are marginalized, etc etc. Some background on his relationship with his daughter - not only does he not have legal custody of her, he used to live in Florida where he brought this suit and was unsuccessful (given the nature of the claim, he needs to have something called "standing" to bring it.) So he moves out to California where the mother and his daughter live, and brings suit there. The 9th Circuit (the federal appeals level) has said that he does have standing and that is does violate his constitutional rights.

I am fortunate enough to get to represent this guy, and we're going all the way to the Supreme Court! Thank goodness this isn't real life (though it could be.) Watch your tax dollars at hard work! We'll tackle the coins next... "In God or No God or Whomever or Whatever We Trust Or Don't Trust."