4 U.S.C. § 4

LIMITATIONS.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 4 CasesGoogle Scholar
“Nothing in this Act shall be considered to permit any display or use that is inconsistent with—“(1) any provision of chapter 1 of title 4, United States Code, or any rule or custom pertaining to the proper display or use of the flag of the United States (as established pursuant to such chapter or any otherwise applicable provision of law); or“(2) any reasonable restriction pertaining to the time, place, or manner of displaying the flag of the United States necessary to protect a substantial interest of the condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004).
Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004). · cites it 6× “" 4 U. S. C. § 4 . II Under California law, "every public elementary school" must begin each day with "appropriate patriotic exercises.”
Freedom From Religion Found. v. Hanover Sch. Dist., 626 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010). · cites it 6× “” 4 U.S.C. § 4 (“the federal Pledge statute”).”
Myers v. Loudoun Cnty. Pub. Schs., 418 F.3d 395 (4th Cir. 2005). “” 4 U.S.C.A. § 4 (West 2005) (the Pledge statute).”
Freedom From Religion Found. v. Hanover Sch. Dist., 665 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D.N.H. 2009). · cites it 4× “All other individuals and institutions named in the caption of this order are intervenors and, as such, have the right to be heard on only two issues: the constitutionality, of 4 U.S.C. § 4 (sometimes referred to below as “the federal Pledge statute”), and the constitutionality…”
Habecker v. Town of Estes Park, Colo., 518 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2008). “Along with several state law claims not pursued on appeal, Habecker complained that: (1) The Pledge statute, 4 U.S.C. § 4 , facially violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; (2) The Pledge policy adopted by the Town violates the Establishment Clause; (3) The…”
Newdow v. Cong. of the United States, 383 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (E.D. Cal. 2005). · cites it 5× “He and two other sets of parents and their minor children 1 bring suit to challenge the constitutionality of 4 U.S.C. § 4 , which codifies the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance, and the practices of four California public school districts requiring students to recite the…”
Newdow v. U.S. Cong., 328 F.3d 466 (9th Cir. 2002). · cites it 3× “The Pledge is recited not just in schools but also at various official events and public ceremonies, including perhaps the most patriotic of occasions— naturalization ceremonies. Generally, the Pledge is recited while standing, facing a United States flag, with the right hand…”
United States v. Wonschik, 353 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2004). “The judge and jurors then apparently recited the Pledge of Allegiance as it is codified in 4 U.S.C. § 4 : “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for…”
Newdow v. Roberts, 603 F.3d 1002 (D.C. Cir. 2010). “§ 302 , the inclusion of "under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, 4 U.S.C. § 4 , and the President's Thanksgiving Day Proclamations.”
Croft Ex Rel. v. Perry, 604 F. Supp. 2d 932 (N.D. Tex. 2009). “4 U.S.C. § 4 (emphasis added). As Defendant notes, the legislative history states that the inclusion of the words “under God” in the national pledge “reflects the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God” and cites the Declaration of…”
Doe v. Acton-Boxborough Reg'l Sch. Dist., 468 Mass. 64 (Mass. 2014). “” This language is codified at 4 U.S.C. § 4 (2012). 10 The pledge was first codified in 1942, but at that time it did not include the words “under God.”
An opinion was released in case 22-7117, Michelle Florio v. Gallaudet Univ., 119 F.4th 67 (D.C. Cir. 2024). “” 4 U.S.C. § 4 ; see Pub. L. No. 77-623, § 7 , 56 Stat.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.