Ruling on `standing' means `under god' lawsuit will continue. (People & Events).

A California atheist whose lawsuit sparked a controversial appeals court ruling striking down the use of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance has won the right to continue the case.

Michael Newdow challenged the use of the Pledge at his 8-year-old daughter's public school in Elk Grove, Calif. In June, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that Congress violated the First Amendment when it inserted "under God" into the Pledge in 1954. The court ordered public schools to stop using the Pledge.

The court later put the ruling on hold pending further appeals. In the meantime, the mother of Newdow's daughter, Sandra Banning, who has physical custody of the child, challenged Newdow's ability to bring the lawsuit.

Banning said her daughter is a Christian and does not oppose reciting the Pledge. She asserted that because Newdow does not have custody of the child, he lacks "standing" the legal right to sue.

The 9th Circuit unanimously rejected Banning's argument Dec. 4. The court noted that although Newdow does not have custody of the girl, he remains her father and thus has an interest in her education and upbringing.

The ruling means that Newdow's case can now proceed to the entire 9th Circuit panel, which will decide whether to hear an appeal of the controversial decision. If the full circuit refuses the case, Newdow v. U.S. Congress can still be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.