Argued: Newdow v. U.S. Congress - The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will rule that the addition of the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance back in 1954 was unconstitutional.
Michael Newdow's argument is that it's unconstitutional for state employees to lead public school students in what is essentially a religious exercise. The court's decision will be made based on whether or not the Pledge passes the "Endorsement Test" created by Justice O'Connor in Lynch v. Donnelly.
According to the majority opinion, the Pledge definitely endorses religion and religious belief:
"...the phrase "one nation under God" in the context of the Pledge is normative. To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and — since 1954 — monotheism. ...
A profession that we are a nation "under God" is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation "under Jesus," a nation "under Vishnu," a nation "under Zeus," or a nation "under no god," because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion."
Read More: Newdow v. U.S. Congress