1989, March 21: The Supreme Court hears arguments in the case of Texas v Johnson. Does the state have the authority to make it a crime to burn an American flag, even as part of a political protest and as a means for expressing a political opinion? Most states have banned flag burning as part of statutes generally outlawing flag desecration. The Supreme Court had to rule on such the Texas law when a man was convicted for burning an American flag at the Republican National Convention.
1989, June 21: The Supreme Court rules 5-4 in the case of Texas v Johnson that the government cannot ban the physical desecration of the American flag.
1989, October 30: The Flag Protection Act, passed by Congress in response to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Texas v Johnson, went into effect. Thousands burned flags in protest against the law and two, Shawn Eichman and Mark Haggerty, challenged their arrest and conviction under the law to the Supreme Court.
1990, May 14: The Supreme Court hears arguments in the case of United States v Eichman. A few months of the Texas v Johnson decision, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, legislatively challenging the Court's ruling and prohibiting the desecration of U.S. flag.
1990, June 11: The Supreme Court rules 5-4 in the case of United States v Eichman that the government cannot ban the physical desecration of the American flag.
2002 , March 14:
Argued: Newdow v. U.S. Congress
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the addition of the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance back in 1954 was unconstitutional.
2002, June 26:
Decided: Newdow v. U.S. Congress
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the addition of the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance back in 1954 was unconstitutional.
2002, August 09: The U.S. Justice Department files an appeal of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling in the Newdow vs. U.S. Congress case in which the court struck down the addition of the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance as unconstitutional.
2003, January 12: Speaking before a small crowd in Fredericksburg, Virginia, at a "Religious Freedom Day" event sponsored by the Knights of Columbus and the Knights Templar, two Roman Catholic fraternal organizations, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia claimed that the Supreme Court had gone too far in separating church and state. He also attacked a 9th Circuit Court ruling against the addition of "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance because it is highly unusual, and perhaps unethical, for a judge to comment on a case he or she might have to rule on later.
2003, February 27: United States Representative Lucas from Oklahoma introduced House Joint Resolution 27 which would add an amendment to the United States Constitution asserting that it is not "an establishment of religion for teachers in public school to recite, or to lead willing students in the recitation of" the The Pledge of Allegiance when it contains the phrase "under God." This was essentially an admission that the Constitution, as it stands, does not permit such recitation.
2003, February 28: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled earlier in the year that the addition of "under God" to the The Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional, refused to reconsider its ruling, saying it would be wrong to allow public outrage to influence its decisions.
2003, March 04: The United States Senate voted 94-0 that it "strongly" disapproved of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision not to reconsider its ruling that the addition of the phase "under God" to the The Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional.
2003, March 20: The United States House of Representatives voted 400-7 to condemn the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision not to reconsider its ruling that the addition of the phase "under God" to the The Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. The seven who voted against the resolution were all Democrats.
2003, April 30: The Bush administration appealed to the Supreme Court to preserve the phrase "under God" in the The Pledge of Allegiance recited by school children. Solicitor General Theodore Olson said that "Whatever else the (Constitution's) establishment clause may prohibit, this court's precedents make clear that it does not forbid the government from officially acknowledging the religious heritage, foundation and character of this nation," and that the Court could strike down the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Newdow vs. United States without even bothering to hear arguments.
2004, June 14: In the case of Newdow v. U.S. Congress, the United States Supreme Court overturns a Ninth Circuit Court decision that struck the addition of "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. The 8-0 ruling is reached on a technicality that Michael Newdow doesn't have standing to bring the case in the first place.
