A federal judge in Sacramento ruled Wednesday that requiring children to recite a Pledge of Allegiance that contains the phrase "under God" in public schools is unconstitutional, a move that sets the stage for another Supreme Court showdown over the daily classroom ritual.

Reaction to the ruling by U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton was swift and widespread. Religious conservatives condemned the decision, while senators at the confirmation hearings of chief justice nominee John Roberts referred to the ruling in an attempt to gauge Roberts' views on the constitutional separation of church and state.

Karlton granted legal standing in the case to two families represented by Sacramento attorney Michael Newdow -- an atheist who lost a previous pledge case before the Supreme Court last year -- and ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates schoolchildren's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

He said he was bound in his decision by the precedent set by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which in 2002 ruled in Newdow's favor that the pledge is unconstitutional. However, the judge limited his ruling to three Sacramento-area school districts, and it would take a ruling by either the Ninth Circuit Court or the U.S. Supreme Court to widen its impact.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appellate court's ruling in the first Newdow case in June 2004, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have full custody of his elementary school daughter. The court avoided the constitutional question but left the door open for a suit by a parent who met the court's standards for legal standing, a decision that set up Wednesday's ruling.

"I'm passionate about treating people equally," Newdow told The Chronicle. "Imagine you send your kids to school every day, and the teachers made them stand up and say, 'We are one nation that denies God exists.' Imagine you are Jewish, and they say, 'We're one nation under Jesus.' Imagine you are Christian, and they say, 'We're one nation under Mohammad.' "

"Do you think it's a big deal? Because that's exactly what goes on against atheists," Newdow said.

The Washington, D.C.-based Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a party to the case, immediately announced that it will appeal the decision to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court if necessary.

"This decision is certainly unfortunate, but it was anticipated," said fund attorney Jared Leland. "We're confident from what Justices at the Supreme Court have suggested that 'under God' will keep its place in the Pledge of Allegiance."

The decision was handed down at a time when the Supreme Court's membership is in flux. John Roberts, who would succeed the late William Rehnquist as chief justice, is undergoing confirmation hearings this week. No replacement has yet been named for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who announced her retirement in July but said she will stay on until a successor is confirmed.

It is unlikely that the case could land in the court before the 2006-07 session.

In the Supreme Court's 5-3 ruling dismissing Newdow's case in June 2004, justices Rehnquist, O'Connor and Clarence Thomas said in their dissent that they would have upheld "under God" as constitutional.

Karlton's ruling was brought up at Roberts' confirmation hearings Wednesday by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who said he would not ask Roberts what he thought of the ruling because the issue might go before the Supreme Court.

But Sessions said such rulings result in part from the high court's lack of clarity in its decision on the tension between the constitutional ban on government establishment of religion and the guarantee of free exercise of religion.

The court's rulings in the area "could be clearer," said Roberts, citing the rulings earlier this year that upheld one state government's display of the Ten Commandments and banned another. Roberts added that the court "could redouble its efforts to try to come up with some consistency in its approach."

Later during the hearing, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the pledge case is undermining the public's confidence in the judiciary and called the ruling an example of "where judges do not protect us from having religion imposed upon us but rather declare war on religion."

Conservative groups also swiftly criticized what they called an inappropriate act of judicial activism.

"This is another bad ruling that warps the U.S. Constitution and dashes parents' hopes of patriotism in the next generation," said Randy Thomasson, president of the California-based Campaign for Children and Families. "When the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered the craziest ruling in American history by striking down the pledge three years ago, the Supreme Court stepped in and stopped the insanity. The lower courts striking down the pledge again is like a dog returning to its vomit."

The original pledge, which did not include the words "under God," was written by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister's son, to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus' arrival in America. Congress adopted the pledge in 1942.

The phrase "under God" was added in 1954 by legislation that recognized a belief that "from the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God," according to the House Report accompanying its passage.

Karlton said he will sign a restraining order prohibiting the recitation of the pledge at Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts in Sacramento County, where the children of Newdow and his fellow plaintiffs are enrolled.

Jim Elliott, a spokesman for the Elk Grove Unified School District, said that students there will continue to say the pledge until the order is signed.

"We are disappointed that our district ... needs to continue to devote time, energy and resources to defend this case. These are resources we could otherwise use on our mission of teaching and learning," said Elk Grove Superintendent Steven Ladd.

Breaking down the case

What the judge ruled: A federal judge in Sacramento ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance's reference to one nation "under God" violates schoolchildren's constitutional right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

The ruling's effect: The ruling is limited to three Sacramento-area school districts. It would take a ruling either by the federal Court of Appeals in San Francisco or the Supreme Court to widen its impact.

Why the case was back in court: The Supreme Court dismissed atheist Michael Newdow's case in 2004, ruling that he had no standing because he had only limited custody of his elementary-school-age daughter. The court left open the possibility of a suit by parents who met its standard. Newdow, an attorney, now represents those parents.

What's next: The ruling is likely to be appealed to the same appellate court that ruled against the pledge in 2002.

Chronicle staff writers Suzanne Herel, Bob Egelko, Lynda Gledhill and Heather Knight contributed to this report.

© 2005 San Francisco Chronicle

###