SAN FRANCISCO — The federal appeals court that declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional has a reputation for liberal and provocative rulings, including support for medical marijuana and the right of inmates to mail their sperm from prison. The San Francisco-based court also has more reversals by the U.S. Supreme Court — 12 out of 17 cases this term — than any other circuit. That is partly because it is the biggest circuit, covering California and eight other states. But it is also because it tends to make liberal, activist rulings. "It's a liberal court. The 9th Circuit may not be out of step. Maybe the Supreme Court is out of step with the 9th Circuit," said Vickram Amar, a Hastings College of the Law professor. "Who's right and who's wrong is another matter." Of the circuit's 23 active judges, 17 were appointed by Democratic presidents and six by Republicans. Circuit Judge Alfred Goodwin, who ruled Wednesday that the words "under God" make the Pledge of Allegiance an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, was appointed by President Nixon. Appointments are for life. Recently, the 9th Circuit was overturned by the Supreme Court after upholding the right of California marijuana clubs to dole out pot to the sick and overturning a federal law allowing authorities to kick tenants out of federal housing projects for drug use. Many legal experts predict the Supreme Court will likewise reverse the ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance, if the circuit does not do so itself first. The ruling was issued by a three-judge panel. The 9th Circuit recently has been reversing its own controversial three-judge decisions with 11-judge panels even before the cases have gotten to the Supreme Court. The latest was in May, when the 9th Circuit reversed course and ruled that inmates do not have a right to procreate and therefore cannot mail their sperm from prison. That same month, the court changed course and held that abortion protesters could be liable for damages for threatening doctors over the Internet and with Wild West-style wanted posters. And in January, an 11-judge panel reinstated tough Reagan-era federal drug sentencing laws. The furor over the Pledge of Allegiance ruling has brought accusations the court has gone too far again. "Freedom to believe or not does not require that God be banished from patriotic observances," said Douglas W. Kmiec, dean at Catholic University of America School of Law. "What the 9th Circuit has done is prefer those who believe in no religion over those who do. No Supreme Court precedent requires that." But other experts said the decision could have been expected, since the Supreme Court never has squarely addressed the issue and has been all over the map on church and state issues. "I think it's totally fair to say that the Supreme Court's doctrine on this has been spotty," said Jesse Choper, a University of California at Berkeley law professor.

---

Copyright ©2025— Trib Total Media, LLC (TribLIVE.com)

---