Karlton said he was bound by the precedent of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Michael Newdow of Sacramento that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school-age daughter on whose behalf he had sued.
Newdow, a lawyer and a physician, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.
''Imagine every morning if the teachers had the children stand up, place their hands over their hearts, and say, 'We are one nation that denies God exists,' " Newdow said in a radio interview after the ruling. ''I think that everybody would not be sitting here saying, 'Oh, what harm is that?' They'd be furious. And that's exactly what goes on against atheists. And it shouldn't."
Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda, and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts in Sacramento County, where the plaintiffs' children attend classes.
The order would not extend beyond those districts unless it is affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, in which case it could apply to nine Western states. If upheld by the Supreme Court, the ruling would apply to all states. The decision sets up another showdown over the pledge in schools, at a time when the makeup of the Supreme Court is in flux.
The ruling was made yesterday as Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. faced his third day of confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He would succeed the late William H. Rehnquist. In July, Sandra Day O'Connor announced her plans to retire when a successor is confirmed.
The Becket Fund, a religious rights group that is a party to the case, said it would immediately appeal the case to the Ninth Circuit, which is based in San Francisco. If the court does not change its precedent, the group would go to the Supreme Court.
''It's a way to get this issue to the Supreme Court for a final decision to be made," said fund lawyer Jared Leland.
