Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Hanover School District

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit

No. 09-2473

FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

HANOVER SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Lynch, Chief Judge,
Howard and Thompson, Circuit Judges.

Michael Newdow with whom Rosanna Fox was on brief for
appellants.
Nancy J. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, with whom
Michael A. Delaney, Attorney General, was on brief for appellee
State of New Hampshire.
Lowell V. Sturgill, Jr., Attorney, Civil Division, with whom
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas P. Colantuano, United
States Attorney, and Robert M. Loeb, Attorney, Civil Division, were
on brief for appellee United States.
Kevin J. Hasson with whom Eric Rassbach and Luke Goodrich were
on brief for appellees Muriel Cyrus et al.
Steven W. Fitschen on brief for The National Legal Foundation,
amicus curiae.
Jay Alan Sekulow, Stuart J. Roth, Colby M. May, Shannon Demos,
Tessa L. Dysart, and John Anthony Simmons, Sr., on brief for
American Center for Law & Justice et al., amicus curiae.
 John A. Eidsmoe, Roy S. Moore, and Benjamin D. DuPré on brief
for Foundation for Moral Law, amicus curiae.
Jeremy D. Tedesco and David A. Cortman on brief for Alliance
Defense Fund and Cornerstone Policy Research, amicus curiae.

November 12, 2010
 LYNCH, Chief Judge. The question presented is whether

the New Hampshire School Patriot Act, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.

§ 194:15-c ("the New Hampshire Act"), which requires that the

state's public schools authorize a period during the school day for

students to voluntarily participate in the recitation of the Pledge

of Allegiance, violates the First or Fourteenth Amendment to the

Constitution of the United States. We hold that the statute is

constitutional and affirm entry of judgment for defendants.

I.

Plaintiffs are The Freedom From Religion Foundation, its

members Jan and Pat Doe, and their three children who attend New

Hampshire public schools (collectively "FFRF"). Jan and Pat Doe

identify themselves as atheist and agnostic, respectively, and

their children as either atheist or agnostic. At the time the

amended complaint was filed in 2008, the eldest child was in sixth

grade and attended a middle school jointly administered by New

Hampshire's Hanover and Dresden school districts, while the younger

two children were enrolled in a public elementary school operated

by the Hanover district. Pursuant to the New Hampshire Act, the

Pledge of Allegiance ("the Pledge") is routinely recited in the Doe

children's classrooms under the leadership of their teachers.1

1
FFRF alleges that the Doe children "have all been led by
their public school teachers in recitations of the Pledge of
Allegiance." First Am. Complt. ¶ 43, ECF No. 52. New Hampshire
has not contested this. The parties have not provided any other
specific information about the operation of the statute such as the

-3-
 The full text of the New Hampshire Act, enacted in 2002,

is as follows:

I. As a continuation of the policy of
teaching our country's history to the
elementary and secondary pupils of this state,
this section shall be known as the New
Hampshire School Patriot Act.

II. A school district shall authorize
a period of time during the school day for the
recitation of the pledge of allegiance. Pupil
participation in the recitation of the pledge
of allegiance shall be voluntary.

III. Pupils not participating in the
recitation of the pledge of allegiance may
silently stand or remain seated but shall be
required to respect the rights of those pupils
electing to participate. If this paragraph
shall be declared to be unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid, the remaining paragraphs in
this section shall not be affected, and shall
continue in full force and effect.

N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 194:15-c.

Several aspects of the statute are worth note. By

expressly requiring that student participation in the recitation of

the Pledge be voluntary, New Hampshire has created a framework in

which a school or educator would violate state law by any actions

that rendered student participation involuntary. In addition, the

statute allows any student not to participate in the recitation of

the Pledge regardless of the student's reasons for non-

participation. Those who do not participate may either stand

silently or remain seated. The only obligation imposed on non-

procedures used or the number of students who participate.

-4-
participants is that they respect the rights of those students

electing to participate.

The New Hampshire Act itself does not identify the words

of the Pledge or otherwise specify which words should be used. The

parties accept that the words of the Pledge that are used in New

Hampshire schools are those codified in federal law: "I pledge

allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the

Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God,2 indivisible,

with liberty and justice for all." 4 U.S.C. § 4 ("the federal

Pledge statute"). The Pledge, which dates to 1892,3 was first

codified in 1942 to clarify the "rules and customs pertaining to

the display and use of the flag of the United States of America."

See Act of June 22, 1942, Pub. L. No. 77-623, 56 Stat. 377. The

words "under God" were added in 1954. See Act of June 14, 1954,

Pub. L. No. 83-396, 68 Stat. 249.4

2
Throughout the opinion, we refer to "God" as used in the
text of the Pledge.
3
In 1892, as part of the commemoration of the 400th
anniversary of Christopher Columbus's discovery of America, a
national magazine for youth proposed that students in school recite
the following affirmation: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the
Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty
and Justice for all." Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542
U.S. 1, 6 (2004) (citing J. Baer, The Pledge of Allegiance: A
Centennial History, 1892-1992, at 3 (1992)) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
4
The taking of a pledge of allegiance pre-dates
Christianity. Certain Athenian males, at puberty, took a longer
pledge, the opening three sentences of which were: "We will never
bring disgrace to this, our city, by any act of dishonesty or

-5-
 The procedural history of the case before us is not

complicated. On November 1, 2007, FFRF filed a lawsuit against the

United States Congress and United State of America ("the Federal

Defendants"), the Hanover School District and Dresden School

District ("the School Districts"), and School Administrative Unit

70.5 FFRF sought a declaration that the federal Pledge statute and

the recitation of the Pledge in New Hampshire's public schools

violated various provisions of the U.S. Constitution, the New

cowardice, nor ever desert our suffering comrades in ranks. We
will fight for the ideals and sacred things of the city, both alone
and with many; we will revere and obey the city's law and do our
best to incite a like respect and reverence in those above us who
are prone to annul and set them at naught. We will strive
unceasingly to quicken the public's sense of civic duty, that thus,
in all these ways, we will transmit this city not only not less,
but greater, better, and more beautiful than it was transmitted to
us." Pledge of Allegiance, Lapham's Quarterly, Fall 2010, at 98.
5
FFRF's claim against School Administrative Unit 70, which
controls the high schools that the Doe children will eventually
attend, was dropped in the amended complaint.

-6-
Hampshire Constitution, and federal and state law,6 and requested

injunctive relief to ensure the end of these violations.7

The State of New Hampshire, the United States of America,

and Muriel Cyrus--a student in the Hanover School district, joined

by a group of other students, five of their parents, and the

Knights of Columbus--filed motions to intervene to assist in the

defense of the New Hampshire Act.8 The court granted these

motions.

6
Specifically, FFRF sought a declaration that Congress
violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in passing the
Act of 1954, which added the words "under God" to the Pledge; that
the words "under God" in the Pledge violated the Establishment and
Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, the Equal Protection
component of the Fifth Amendment, and The Religious Freedom
Restoration Act (RFRA); and that the School Districts, in having
their agents lead the recitation of the Pledge, violated the
Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the RFRA,
Article 6 of the New Hampshire Constitution, and other provisions
of New Hampshire state law.
7
FFRF asked the court to "demand" that Congress act to
remove the words "under God" from 4 U.S.C. § 4; that the United
States use its power to remove the words "under God" from 4 U.S.C.
§ 4; and that the School Districts cease and desist using the
Pledge.
8
Although the United States was already a defendant with
respect to FFRF's claim that 4 U.S.C. § 4 is unconstitutional on
its face, it was not a defendant with respect to FFRF's claims
challenging the recitation of the Pledge in New Hampshire schools,
and it therefore moved to intervene as a defendant against what it
took to be an as-applied challenge to 4 U.S.C. § 4. While the
district court allowed the United State to intervene, it ultimately
rejected the argument that the federal statute was being "applied,"
as the statute merely prescribes the text of the Pledge and does
not command any person to recite it or lead others in its
recitation.

-7-
 On August 7, 2008, the Federal Defendants filed a motion

to dismiss the claims against them, which the court granted.9 The

constitutionality of the federal Pledge statute, 4 U.S.C. § 4, is

not at issue in this appeal.

FFRF filed an amended complaint on November 17, 2008,

naming only the School Districts as defendants. FFRF alleged that

the School Districts had or would violate the rights of the Doe

children under the First Amendment's Establishment and Free

Exercise Clauses; the rights of the Doe parents under the Free

Exercise Clause; the rights of both the Doe children and their

parents under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses; and the

Doe parents' federal constitutional rights of parenthood, as well

as the Doe children's concomitant rights.10 The United States, New

Hampshire, and Cyrus then renewed their motions to dismiss.11

On September 30, 2009, the district court dismissed all

of FFRF's federal claims on their merits,12 and issued a final

9
The Federal Defendants' motion also requested dismissal
of the claims against the School Districts on the grounds that FFRF
failed to state a claim, but this part of the motion was denied, as
the School Districts had not filed a motion to dismiss.
10
FFRF also advanced a variety of state law claims that are
not before us on appeal.
11
The district court construed these motions to dismiss as
having been advanced by the School Districts as well.
12
Having done so, the court found that principles of comity
counseled in favor of not exercising supplemental jurisdiction over
the remaining state law claims and dismissed the state claims
without prejudice.

-8-
judgment in favor of the United States, the School Districts, and

Cyrus.

FFRF filed a timely notice of appeal from the district

court's dismissal of its federal claims against the School

Districts.

II.

The issue on appeal is whether the New Hampshire Act

requiring that its public schools provide a period for the

voluntary recitation of the Pledge violates the Establishment

Clause, Free Exercise Clause, Equal Protection Clause, or Due

Process Clause. We review de novo the district court's dismissal

of FFRF's amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), accepting as true

all well-pleaded facts in the complaint and drawing all reasonable

inferences in the plaintiffs' favor. Sutliffe v. Epping Sch.

Dist., 584 F.3d 314, 325 (1st Cir. 2009). The issue is one of

law.13 No material facts are in dispute.

A. The Pledge Does not Violate the Establishment Clause

Under the Establishment Clause, "Congress shall make no

law respecting an establishment of religion." U.S. Const. amend.

I. Although applicable originally only against the federal

13
Every federal circuit court that has addressed a state
pledge statute has rejected the claim of unconstitutionality. See
Croft v. Perry, No. 09-10347, 2010 WL 3991719 (5th Cir. Oct. 13,
2010); Newdow v. Rio Linda Union Sch. Dist., 597 F.3d 1007 (2010);
Myers v. Loudoun County Pub. Sch., 418 F.3d 395 (4th Cir. 2005);
Sherman v. Cmty. Consol. Sch. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437 (7th Cir.
1992).

-9-
government, the Establishment Clause was incorporated to apply to

the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Everson v. Bd. of Educ.,

330 U.S. 1, 8 (1947).

In determining whether a law runs afoul of this

prohibition, the Supreme Court has articulated three interrelated

analytical approaches: the three-prong analysis set forth in Lemon

v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971); the "endorsement"

analysis, first articulated by Justice O'Connor in her concurrence

in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984), and applied by a

majority of the Court in County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573

(1989); and the "coercion" analysis of Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S.

577, 587 (1992).14 Before applying the three approaches to the case

before us, we first address a few general matters.

FFRF's argument is that the School Districts' Pledge

practices pursuant to the New Hampshire Act are religious for

purposes of the First Amendment because the Pledge itself is a

religious exercise in that it uses the phrase "under God." FFRF

argues that despite the voluntary nature of any student

participation in the Pledge, the result is nonetheless the

establishment by the state of religion.

14
There is an abundance of commentary from courts and
others as to the relationship between these three analytical
approaches. See, e.g., Freethought Soc. of Greater Philadelphia v.
Chester County, 334 F.3d 247, 256-62 (3rd Cir. 2003); Mellen v.
Bunting, 327 F.3d 355, 370-71 (4th Cir. 2003); Adland v. Russ, 307
F.3d 471, 479 (6th Cir. 2002). We bypass the question.

-10-
 As to the first part of the argument, we begin with the

unremarkable proposition that the phrase "under God" has some

religious content. In our view, mere repetition of the phrase in

secular ceremonies does not by itself deplete the phrase of all

religious content.15 A belief in God is a religious belief. That

the phrase has some religious content is demonstrated by the fact

that those who are religious, as well as those who are not, could

reasonably be offended by the claim that it does not. See Myers v.

Loudoun County Pub. Sch., 418 F.3d 395, 407 (4th Cir. 2005)

("Undoubtedly, the Pledge contains a religious phrase, and it is

demeaning to persons of any faith to assert that the words 'under

God' contain no religious significance."); see also Van Orden v.

Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 695-96 (2005) (Thomas, J., concurring)

("[W]ords such as 'God' have religious significance. . . . Telling

either nonbelievers or believers that the words 'under God' have no

meaning contradicts what they know to be true.").

15
Even those who find no Establishment Clause violations
under the doctrine of "ceremonial deism" do not necessarily deny
that the phrase has some religious content. See, e.g., Sherman,
980 F.2d at 445-47. Justice Brennan, dissenting in Lynch v.
Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), famously said: "I would suggest that
such practices as . . . the references to God contained in the
Pledge of Allegiance can best be understood . . . as a form a
'ceremonial deism,' protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny
chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any
significant religious content." Id. at 716 (Brennan, J.,
dissenting) (footnote omitted). We understand Justice Brennan to
have considered the context and circumstances of the usage of the
phrase.

-11-
 That the phrase "under God" has some religious content,

however, is not determinative of the New Hampshire Act's

constitutionality. This is in part because the Constitution does

not "require complete separation of church and state." Lynch, 465

U.S. at 673. The fact of some religious content is also not

dispositive because there are different degrees of religious and

non-religious meaning. The Supreme Court has upheld a wide variety

of governmental actions that have some religious content. See,

e.g., Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 681 (upholding the display of the Ten

Commandments on the Texas State Capitol grounds); County of

Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 578-79 (upholding the display of a Chanukah

menorah outside a government building); Lynch, 465 U.S. at 670-72

(upholding the display of a Nativity scene in a public Christmas

display); Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 784-86 (1983) (upholding

a state legislature's practice of opening each day with a prayer

led by a chaplain paid with state funds).

The Pledge and the phrase "under God" are not themselves

prayers, nor are they readings from or recitations of a sacred text

of a religion. That fact does not itself dispose of the

constitutional question either. There are many religiously infused

practices that do not rise to the level of prayer that are clearly

prohibited by the Establishment Clause. In the public school

context, the Supreme Court has struck down the teaching of creation

-12-
science, Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), and the display

of a Ten Commandments poster, Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980).

Special considerations are involved when a claim involves

public school students. In the Establishment Clause context,

public schools are different, in part because the students are not

adults, and in part because a purpose of a public school is to

inculcate values and learning. "Recognizing the potential dangers

of school-endorsed religious practice," the Supreme Court has

"shown particular 'vigilan[ce] in monitoring compliance with the

Establishment Clause in elementary and secondary schools.'" Bd. of

Educ. of Westside Cmty. Sch. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 264 (1990)

(alteration in original) (quoting Edwards, 482 U.S. at 583-584).

For example, while the Court has upheld a state legislature's

practice of opening each day with a prayer led by a chaplain paid

with state funds, Marsh, 463 U.S. at 784-86, it has repeatedly

found that prayers, invocations, and other overtly religious

activities in public schools violate the Establishment Clause.

See, e.g., Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)

(invalidating a school policy of permitting the delivery of

student-led prayer before high school football games); Lee, 505

U.S. 577 (invalidating the delivery of an invocation by a member of

the clergy at graduation ceremonies); Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S.

38 (1985) (invalidating a period of silence for meditation or

voluntary prayer); Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S.

-13-
203 (1963) (invalidating a required Bible reading before each

school day); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) (invalidating the

saying of a daily prayer).

The question is where along this spectrum of cases falls

the voluntary, teacher-led recitation of the Pledge, including the

phrase "under God," by pupils in New Hampshire's public schools.

We turn to the Court's different analytical measures for

Establishment Clause claims.

1. The Three-factored Lemon Analysis

Under the Lemon analysis,16 a court must consider three

factors: "First, the statute must have a secular legislative

purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that

neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must

not foster 'an excessive government entanglement with religion.'"

Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612-13 (quoting Walz v. Tax Commission, 397 U.S.

664, 674 (1970)) (citation omitted). As FFRF does not allege

entanglement, the third prong is not at issue here.

FFRF concedes that the New Hampshire Act has a secular

purpose--the promotion of patriotism--but insists that this does

16
Although the Lemon analysis has been often criticized,
including by members of the Supreme Court, see Freethought Soc.,334
F.3d at 256 (collecting cases), the Court has never expressly
rejected it in cases such as this, and we have continued to apply
it in the First Circuit. See, e.g., Boyajian v. Gatzunis, 212 F.3d
1, 4 (1st Cir. 2000). The Lemon factors have, in the years since
their first use in 1971, been described as "no more than helpful
sign posts." Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 685 (2005) (quoting
Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734, 741 (1973)).

-14-
not end the inquiry. FFRF argues that Congress had an

impermissible religious purpose when it added the words "under God"

to the text of the Pledge in 1954, and that this fact must be

considered in our analysis. Even if so, the argument does not go

to the first factor. We look at the purpose of New Hampshire when

it enacted the statute in 2002, in the aftermath of the tragedy of

September 11, 2001. Because FFRF has stipulated that New Hampshire

had a secular purpose,17 its claim of impermissible governmental

purpose clearly fails on the first prong of Lemon.

FFRF argues, under the second factor, that the principal

or primary effect of the New Hampshire Act is the advancement of

religion. The Pledge's affirmation that ours is a "nation, under

God" is not a mere reference to the fact that many Americans

believe in a deity, nor to the undeniable historical significance

of religion in the founding of our nation. As the Supreme Court

recognized in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette,

319 U.S. 624 (1943), to recite the Pledge is to "declare a belief"

and "affirm[] . . . an attitude of mind." Id. at 631, 633. In

reciting the Pledge, a student affirms a belief in its description

of the nation.18 For this reason, it is unconstitutional under the

17
There is no claim that New Hampshire articulated a
patriotic purpose as a subterfuge meant to avoid First Amendment
strictures.
18
See Douglas Laycock, Theology Scholarships, The Pledge of
Allegiance, and Religious Liberty: Avoiding the Extremes but
Missing the Liberty, 118 Harv. L. Rev. 156, 228 (2004) ("To affirm

-15-
Free Speech Clause to require that students recite the Pledge in

public schools. See id. at 642 ("If there is any fixed star in our

constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or

petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics,

nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force

citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.").

In looking at the effect of the state's creation of a

daily period for the voluntary recitation of the Pledge, we must

consider the text as a whole and must take account of context and

circumstances. See, e.g., Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 701 (Breyer, J.,

concurring in the judgment) (“[T]o determine the message that the

text here conveys, we must examine how the text is used. And that

inquiry requires us to consider the context of the display.”);

County of Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 598 (“[T]he effect of a créche

display turns on its setting.”). It takes more than the presence

of words with religious content to have the effect of advancing

religion, let alone to do so as a primary effect.

As to context, there is no claim that a student is

required to advance a belief in theism (or monotheism), nor is

this description necessarily affirms the propositions included in
that description: that there is a God, and only one, of such a
nature that a nation can be under that God."). But see Elk Grove,
542 U.S. at 26 (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring in the judgment)
("[T]he Pledge itself is a patriotic observance focused primarily
on the flag and the Nation, and only secondarily on the description
of the Nation.").

-16-
there any claim that a student is even encouraged by the faculty to

say the Pledge if the student chooses not to do so.

By design, the recitation of the Pledge in New Hampshire

public schools is meant to further "the policy of teaching our

country's history to the elementary and secondary pupils of this

state." N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 194:15-c. "The very purpose of a

national flag is to serve as a symbol of our country." Elk Grove

Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 6 (2004) (quoting Texas

v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 405 (1989)) (internal quotation marks

omitted). As the Court has observed, "the Pledge of Allegiance

evolved as a common public acknowledgment of the ideals that our

flag symbolizes. Its recitation is a patriotic exercise designed

to foster national unity and pride in those principles." Id. In

reciting the Pledge, students promise fidelity to our flag and our

nation, not to any particular God, faith, or church.

The New Hampshire School Patriot Act's primary effect is

not the advancement of religion, but the advancement of patriotism

through a pledge to the flag as a symbol of the nation.

2. The Endorsement Analysis

Under the related endorsement analysis, courts must

consider whether the challenged governmental action has the purpose

or effect of endorsing, favoring, or promoting religion. County of

Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 593-94. "The Establishment Clause, at the

very least, prohibits government from appearing to take a position

-17-
on questions of religious belief or from 'making adherence to a

religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the

political community.'" County of Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 593-94

(quoting Lynch, 465 U.S. at 687 (O'Connor, J., concurring)). A

practice in which the state is involved may not "send[] the

ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents

'that they are outsiders, not full members of the political

community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are

insiders, favored members of the political community.'" Santa Fe,

530 U.S. at 309-10 (quoting Lynch, 465 U.S. at 688 (O'Connor, J.,

concurring)).

At the heart of FFRF's claim is its argument that those

students who choose not to recite the Pledge for reasons of non-

belief in God are quite visibly differentiated from other students

who stand and participate. The result, FFRF argues, is that the

recitation of the Pledge makes the Doe children outsiders to their

peer group on the grounds of their religion.

FFRF's premise is that children who choose not to recite

the Pledge become outsiders based on their beliefs about religion.

That premise is flawed. Under the New Hampshire Act, both the

choice to engage in the recitation of the Pledge and the choice not

to do so are entirely voluntary. The reasons pupils choose not to

participate are not themselves obvious. There are a wide variety

of reasons why students may choose not to recite the Pledge,

-18-
including many reasons that do not rest on either religious or

anti-religious belief. These include political disagreement with

reciting the Pledge, a desire to be different, a view of our

country's history or the significance of the flag that differs from

that contained in the Pledge, and no reason at all. Even students

who agree with the Pledge may choose not to recite the Pledge.

Thus, the Doe children are not religiously differentiated from

their peers merely by virtue of their non-participation in the

Pledge.

Furthermore, the constitutionality of a state statute

does not turn on the subjective feelings of plaintiffs as to

whether a religious endorsement has occurred. Rather, in the

endorsement analysis, the court assumes the viewpoint of an

"objective observer acquainted with the text, legislative history,

and implementation of the statute." Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 308

(quoting Wallace, 472 U.S. at 73, 76 (O'Connor, J., concurring in

the judgment)).19 Indeed, in a wide variety of contexts, the law

19
Because it makes no difference to the outcome, we need
not get into the nuances of which observer is at play: for
instance, whether the relevant observer is any adult, the parent,
the student, the mature student, or the immature student. There
are cases in which the Supreme Court has assumed the viewpoint of
a high school student affected by the state action. See, e.g.,
Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 308 (2000)
(referring to the view of "an objective Santa Fe High School
student"); Bd. of Educ. of Westside Cmty. Sch. v. Mergens, 496 U.S.
226, 249-52 (1990) (referring to an objective observer in the
position of a secondary school student). But the Second Circuit
has cautioned: "We cannot conclude that it makes equal sense to
treat a first or second grader as the 'objective observer' who can

-19-
rejects tests relying on subjectivity and utilizes the analytic

device of asking how a reasonable and objective observer would view

the matter in question. See, e.g., Capitol Square Review &

Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 779-781 (1995) (O'Connor,

J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) ("In this

respect, the applicable observer is similar to the 'reasonable

person' in tort law, who 'is not to be identified with any ordinary

individual, who might occasionally do unreasonable things,' but is

'rather a personification of a community ideal of reasonable

behavior, determined by the [collective] social judgment.'")

(quoting W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and

Keeton on Law of Torts 175 (5th ed. 1984)).

Adopting the view of the objective observer fully aware

of the relevant circumstances, we conclude there has been no

endorsement of religion. The state legislature passed the New

Hampshire Act in the aftermath of September 11, 2001 with the

intent of fostering patriotism, see, e.g., N.H.S. Jour. 945-67

(2002), and that is the statute's effect. Taken in the context of

the words of the whole Pledge, the phrase "under God" does not

convey a message of endorsement.

take account of the text, history, and implementation of a
challenged policy." Skoros v. City of New York, 437 F.3d 1, 23 (2d
Cir. 2006); see also Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S.
98, 115 (2001) ("[T]o the extent we consider whether the community
would feel coercive pressure to engage in the Club's activities,
the relevant community would be the parents, not the elementary
school children.") (internal citation omitted).

-20-
 The importance of context in the endorsement inquiry is

made clear by two cases in which the Supreme Court has addressed

the display of crèches at Christmas. In the first case, Lynch, the

Court concluded that although a crèche displayed by the city was

itself religious, the fact that it was located in a broader holiday

display clarified to the reasonable observer that the city was, as

part of the holiday, simply acknowledging religion with the crèche

and not endorsing it. Lynch, 465 U.S. at 679-80. By contrast, the

Court in County of Allegheny concluded that a display of a crèche

in a county courthouse with an angel bearing a banner proclaiming

"Gloria in Excelsis Deo," with no surrounding secular objects to

change the message conveyed, was an unconstitutional endorsement of

religion. County of Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 598.

Along this spectrum, the two word phrase "under God" in

the thirty-one words of the Pledge is much closer to the crèche at

issue in Lynch. The phrase is surrounded by words that modify its

significance--not by changing its meaning, but rather by providing

clarity to the message conveyed and its purpose. Cf. Lynch, 465

U.S. at 692 (O'Connor, J., concurring) ("Although the religious and

indeed sectarian significance of the crèche . . . is not

neutralized by the setting, the overall holiday setting changes

what viewers may fairly understand to be the purpose of the

display."). Here, the words "under God" appear in a pledge to a

-21-
flag--itself a secular exercise, accompanied by no other religious

language or symbolism.

We reject FFRF's claim of unconstitutional endorsement.

3. The Coercion Analysis

Relying heavily on Lee, FFRF finally argues that the

recitation of the Pledge in public school classrooms

unconstitutionally coerces the Doe children to "recite a purely

religious ideology."

Lee invalidated a public school's practice of inviting

members of the clergy to give a nonsectarian prayer at its

graduation ceremonies. Lee, 505 U.S. at 581-82. Although

attendance at the ceremonies and participation during the prayer

were voluntary, the Court found that there was indirect pressure on

attending students to stand or maintain respectful silence during

the prayer, and that because silence during prayer signifies

participation, this practice was unconstitutional. Id. at 598.

Lee held that "the Constitution guarantees that government may not

coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its

exercise." Id. at 587.

Coercion need not be direct to violate the Establishment

Clause, but rather can take the form of "subtle coercive pressure"

that interferes with an individual's "real choice" about whether to

participate in the activity at issue. Lee, 505 U.S. at 592, 595.

In public schools, this danger of impermissible, indirect coercion

-22-
is most pronounced because of the "young impressionable children

whose school attendance is statutorily compelled." Schempp, 374

U.S. at 307 (Goldberg, J., concurring). As Lee stated, "prayer

exercises in public schools carry a particular risk of indirect

coercion. The concern may not be limited to the context of

schools, but it is most pronounced there." Lee, 505 U.S. at 592.

FFRF contends that the Pledge, while not a prayer, is

more problematic than the prayer at issue in Lee. It argues that

the students in this case are younger and more impressionable; that

they are led by teachers whom they respect as authorities, rather

than by a member of the clergy whom they do not know; that those

who participate are encouraged to verbalize the words, rather than

merely listen; that the Pledge occurs every day, rather than once

or twice in their school career; that a refusal to participate in

the recitation of the Pledge is more obvious than refusing to

listen to a prayer; and that unlike at a graduation ceremony, the

students do not have their parents next to them to support them in

their non-participation. These concerns do not make the New

Hampshire Act unconstitutional. At least two factors distinguish

Lee from this case.

First, like other courts that have reviewed the Pledge,

we think it relevant that the religious content of the phrase "under

-23-
God" is couched in a non-religious text.20 This fact is not

dispositive, but it is significant. It removes the case from the

direct scope of Lee, where the Court explained: "These dominant

facts mark and control the confines of our decision: State officials

direct the performance of a formal religious exercise . . . ." Lee,

505 U.S. at 586 (emphasis added). Recitation of the Pledge is not

a formal religious exercise.

Second, the logic of Lee does not apply directly to the

case before us. The Lee finding of unconstitutional coercion can

be read to result from a three-step analysis involving two premises

and a conclusion. The Court found that students were being coerced

into silence during the saying of the prayer; that silence was, in

the eyes of the community, functionally identical to participation

in the prayer; and that therefore, students were being functionally

20
In addressing the claim that the recitation of a pledge
of allegiance including the phrase "under God" is unconstitutional
under Lee, other courts have reasoned that the cases are
fundamentally different because saying the pledge is not itself a
religious exercise. See, e.g., Croft, 2010 WL 3991719, at *10 ("A
pledge of allegiance to a flag is not a prototypical religious
activity."); Rio Linda, 597 F.3d at 1038 ("We agree that the
students in elementary schools are being coerced to listen to the
other students recite the Pledge. They may even feel induced to
recite the Pledge themselves. . . . But the main distinction is
this: Here, the students are being coerced to participate in a
patriotic exercise, not a religious exercise."); Myers, 418 F.3d at
408 ("The indirect coercion analysis discussed in Lee, Schempp, and
Engel, simply is not relevant in cases, like this one, challenging
non-religious activities. Even assuming that the recitation of the
Pledge contains a risk of indirect coercion, the indirect coercion
is not threatening to establish religion, but patriotism.").

-24-
coerced into participation in the prayer in violation of the

Constitution.21

A key premise is different here. While in Lee, "the act

of standing or remaining silent was an expression of participation

in the rabbi's prayer," Lee, 505 U.S. at 593, silence by students

is not an expression of participation in the Pledge. Rather, a

student who remains silent during the saying of the Pledge engages

in overt non-participation by doing so, and this non-participation

is not itself an expression of either religious or non-religious

belief.

FFRF's claim of unconstitutional coercion under Lee

fails.

B. The Pledge Does Not Violate the Free Exercise Clause

Under the Free Exercise Clause, the government may not

"(1) compel affirmation of religious beliefs; (2) punish the

21
See Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 593 (1992) ("The
undeniable fact is that the school district's supervision and
control of a high school graduation ceremony places public
pressure, as well as peer pressure, on attending students to stand
as a group or, at least, maintain respectful silence during the
invocation and benediction. . . . There can be no doubt that for
many, if not most, of the students at the graduation, the act of
standing or remaining silent was an expression of participation in
the rabbi's prayer. That was the very point of the religious
exercise. It is of little comfort to a dissenter, then, to be told
that for her the act of standing or remaining in silence signifies
mere respect, rather than participation. What matters is that,
given our social conventions, a reasonable dissenter in this milieu
could believe that the group exercise signified her own
participation or approval of it. Finding no violation under these
circumstances would place objectors in the dilemma of
participating, with all that implies, or protesting.").

-25-
expression of religious doctrines it believes to be false; (3)

impose special disabilities on the basis of religious views or

religious status; or (4) lend its power to one side or the other in

controversies over religious authorities or dogma." Parker v.

Hurley, 514 F.3d 87, 103 (1st Cir. 2008). The First Amendment's

prohibition on laws "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion is

incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940).

FFRF contends that the recitation of the Pledge in the

Doe children's classrooms violates their ability to freely believe

in atheism or agnosticism, and places an unconstitutional burden on

the Doe parents' free exercise right to instill their religious

values in their children. This claim is foreclosed by Parker.

In Parker, we explained that "[p]ublic schools are not

obliged to shield individual students from ideas which potentially

are religiously offensive, particularly when the school imposes no

requirement that the student agree with or affirm those ideas, or

even participate in discussions about them." Parker, 514 F.3d at

106. Because the Doe children allege mere exposure to the religious

content of the Pledge, they cannot state a claim under the Free

Exercise Clause, nor can their parents, as "the mere fact that a

child is exposed on occasion in public school to a concept offensive

to a parent's religious belief does not inhibit the parent from

instructing the child differently." Id. at 105.

-26-
C. The Pledge Does Not Violate the Equal Protection Clause

Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment, the Constitution "guarantees that those who are similarly

situated will be treated alike." In re Subpoena to Witzel, 531 F.3d

113, 118 (1st Cir. 2008). Invoking the Equal Protection Clause,

FFRF contends that the School Districts have a duty to show equal

respect for the Does' atheist and agnostic beliefs, that they are

in breach of this duty by leading students in affirming that God

exists, and that they created a social environment that perpetuates

prejudice against atheists and agnostics. However, the New

Hampshire Act does "not require different treatment of any class of

people because of their religious beliefs," nor does it "give

preferential treatment to any particular religion." Wirzburger v.

Galvin, 412 F.3d 271, 283 (1st Cir. 2005). Rather, as the district

court found, "it applies equally to those who believe in God, those

who do not, and those who do not have a belief either way, giving

adherents of all persuasions the right to participate or not

participate in reciting the pledge, for any or no reason."

Therefore, FFRF's equal protection claim fails.

D. The Pledge Does Not Violate the Due Process Clause

FFRF's final allegation is that the recitation of the

Pledge in the Doe children's classrooms violates the Doe parents'

fundamental constitutional right of parenthood protected by the Due

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. FFRF argues that this

-27-
right is embraced within the general right of parenthood recognized

by Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000). Because this claim

is adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by any effort

at developed argumentation, it is waived. United States v. Zannino,

895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990). In any event, the claim lacks

merit, as "the substantive due process clause . . . does not give

[parents] the degree of control over their children's education that

their requested relief seeks." Parker, 514 F.3d at 102-03.

III.

We hold that the New Hampshire School Patriot Act and the

voluntary, teacher-led recitation of the Pledge by the state's

public school students do not violate the Constitution. We affirm

the order and judgment of the district court dismissing FFRF's

complaint.

-28-