The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts will listen to arguments on Wednesday regarding the elimination of the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, with the plaintiffs citing discrimination as the argument for its removal, according to CNN.
Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association, said he is looking forward to argue on behalf of the plaintiffs.
"This is the first challenge of its kind" he told CNN. "We feel very confident that we have a strong case."
The case was brought on by the unidentified family of a suburban Boston student. Lawyers for the family will argue that the "under God" portion of the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Equal Rights Amendment of the state's constitution.
This is the first case involving the Pledge of Allegiance to be tried on the state level -- all other attempts were tried in federal court and argued that "under God" was a violation of the seperation of church and state.
"They're grasping at straws" said lawyer Eric Rassbach of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, arguing to leave the pledge alone. "They know they would lose again if they tried it under the First Amendment, so now they are trying a new tack."
Rassbach also claims that discrimination is not an issue when it comes to the pledge since nobody is obligated to recite it.
"This would be very different if they were forced to recite the pledge," he said.
However, Speckhardt says discrimination is still present.
"The opt-out itself is exclusionary and unpleasant" he argued. "Children are left with a bad choice: either stand up and recite something against your beliefs, or opt out and be ostracized."
If the plaintiffs win their case, it would not be the first time the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts would set a precedent in equal rights cases. In 2003, Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage.
Rassbach claimed the plaintiffs chose this court because of it's history.
"I think there is a reason why they chose this court" he said. "But the law is the law, and I think the court will decide that this is not discrimination, but a disagreement."
