SAN JOSE, Calif. -- The Pledge of Allegiance in public schools has survived another legal challenge.

A federal appeals court Thursday ensured that the cherished classroom ritual isn't going away anytime soon, rejecting the latest attempt to remove the pledge from public schools. The sweeping ruling shot down the arguments of a Sacramento, Calif., atheist who has been trying in the courts for a decade to end the morning practice because he considers it to be government endorsement of religion.

In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco concluded that the pledge is constitutional and does not amount to a religious exercise. Atheist Michael Newdow had argued that the pledge should be banned from public schools because he maintains that the inclusion of the phrase "under God" violates the constitutional separation between church and state.

The 9th Circuit ruling overturns a decision from a Sacramento federal judge, who ruled in Dr. Newdow's favor earlier in the case.

In a separate ruling Thursday, the 9th Circuit also rejected Dr. Newdow's legal argument that the phrase "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency is unconstitutional as well.

"We find the pledge is one of allegiance to our republic, not of allegiance to God or to any religion," wrote Judge Carlos Bea, joined by Judge Dorothy Nelson. "Congress' ostensible and predominant purpose when it enacted and amended the pledge over time was patriotic, not religious."

Dr. Newdow, an emergency physician-turned-lawyer who has represented himself in a long legal odyssey over the pledge, could not be reached for comment Thursday. He can ask the 9th Circuit to reconsider the ruling with an 11-judge panel, or seek review in the U.S. Supreme Court, which has never tackled the pledge question directly.

The 9th Circuit previously stunned the nation with a different ruling in 2002, when a divided panel sided with Dr. Newdow and concluded that the pledge indeed is a government endorsement of religion. The U.S. Supreme Court later wiped that ruling off the books on procedural grounds, and Dr. Newdow renewed his legal challenge against the Rio Linda Union School District on behalf of a "Jan Roe" student.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who joined in the 2002 ruling, dissented from Thursday's decision. He issued a blistering critique of the ruling, saying it would "no doubt be celebrated by a large number of Americans as a repudiation of activist, liberal, Godless judging."

"Nevertheless," Judge Reinhardt, one of the nation's most outspoken liberal judges continued, "by reaching the result the majority does, we have failed in our constitutional duty as a court."

Washington correspondent Daniel Malloy writes the "Pittsburgh On The Potomac" blog exclusively at PG+, a members-only web site of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Our introduction to PG+ gives you all the details.