SUPREME COURT Is pledge ruling a victory or defeat for parental rights?

Another fight over the words 'under God' is considered likely.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- The atheist father who challenged the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance says the Supreme Court's dismissal of the case represents "a blow for parental rights."
But the decision was so narrowly crafted that its impact will be muted, legal experts said. Some scholars suggested the decision even bolstered parental rights by upholding a Sacramento County family court order granting the daughter's mother absolute control of her upbringing.
The justices ruled Monday that because Michael Newdow did not have legal custody of his daughter, he had no standing to bring a lawsuit on her behalf challenging the words under God in the pledge.
Without addressing the merits of the case, the decision overturns a federal appeals court's 2002 ruling that the pledge, with its 50-year-old reference to God, was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion when recited in public schools. The decision also overturned the appeals court that ruled Newdow could sue.
It was an anticlimactic end to an emotional high-court showdown over God in the public schools and in public life. It also neutralizes what might have been a potent election-year political issue in which the Bush administration argued strongly that the reference to God should remain part of the pledge.
The outcome does not prevent a future court challenge over the same issue, however, and both defenders and opponents of the current wording predicted that fight will come quickly.
Mother's view
The mother, Sandra Banning, an Elk Grove Christian, wants her daughter to recite the pledge with the words under God and told the justices the girl, whose parents never married, does not object to it.
"The local court gave the decision-making authority to Ms. Banning. He tried to usurp that authority and do an end run around that with this constitutional claim," said Douglas Kmiec, a professor at Pepperdine University School of Law.
Richard Barry, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, said the decision left intact the rights of parents.
"It seems to me it's not going to make a big impact on parental rights," Barry said.
Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer, is in a protracted custody fight with Banning.
When he sued to overturn the pledge in federal court, Newdow said his now 10-year-old daughter should not be exposed to God each school morning.