<P> In 2004, linguist Geoffrey Nunberg said the original supporters of the addition thought that they were simply quoting Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but to Lincoln and his contemporaries, "under God" meant "God willing", so they would have found its use in the Pledge of Allegiance grammatically incorrect and semantically odd . </P> <P> Prominent legal challenges were brought in the 1930s and 1940s by Jehovah's Witnesses, a denomination whose beliefs preclude swearing loyalty to any power other than God, and who objected to policies in public schools requiring students to swear an oath to the flag . They said requiring the pledge violated their freedom of religion guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment . The first case was in 1935, when two children, Lillian and William Gobitas, ages ten and twelve, were expelled from the Minersville, Pennsylvania, public schools that year for failing to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance . </P> <P> In a 2002 case brought by atheist Michael Newdow, whose daughter was being taught the Pledge in school, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the phrase "under God" an unconstitutional endorsement of monotheism when the Pledge was promoted in public school . In 2004, the Supreme Court heard Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, an appeal of the ruling, and rejected Newdow's claim on the grounds that he was not the custodial parent, and therefore lacked standing, thus avoiding ruling on the merits of whether the phrase was constitutional in a school - sponsored recitation . On January 3, 2005, a new suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on behalf of three unnamed families . On September 14, 2005, District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled in their favor . Citing the precedent of the 2002 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Karlton issued an Order stating that, upon proper motion, he would enjoin the school district defendants from continuing their practices of leading children in pledging allegiance to "one Nation under God ." </P> <P> A 2005 Bill, H.R. 2389, to prohibit the Supreme Court's and most federal courts from considering any legal challenges to the government's requiring or promoting of the Pledge of Allegiance, died in the Senate after having passed in the House . This action is viewed in general as court stripping by Congress of the constitutional power of the Judiciary . Even if a similar bill is enacted, its practical effect may not be clear: proponents of the bill have said that it is a valid exercise of Congress's power to regulate the jurisdiction of the federal courts under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, but opponents say Congress does not have the authority to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing claims based on the Bill of Rights, since amendments postdate the original text of the Constitution and may thus implicitly limit the scope of Article III, Section 2 . Judges and legal analysts have said that if Congress can remove from the judicial branch the ability to determine if legislation is constitutional, the US separation of powers would be disturbed, or rendered non-functional . </P>

What changes were made to the pledge of allegiance