"I want to be treated equally," said Michael Newdow, who argued the cases consecutively to a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday. He added that supporters of the phrases "want to have their religious views espoused by the government."

Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer, sued his daughter's school district in 2000 for forcing public school children to recite the pledge, saying it was unconstitutional.

The 9th Circuit ruled in Newdow's favor in 2002, but two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that he lacked standing to sue because he didn't have custody of the daughter on whose behalf he brought the case. He immediately filed a second lawsuit on behalf of three unidentified parents and their children in another district.

In 2005, a federal judge in Sacramento again found in favor of Newdow, ruling the pledge was unconstitutional. The judge said he was following the precedent set by the 9th Circuit's ruling in Newdow's first case.

Terence Cassidy, a lawyer for the school district, argued Tuesday that reciting the pledge is simply a "patriotic exercise" and a reminder of the traditions of the U.S.

"How is pledging allegiance to a nation under God not a religious act?" Judge Dorothy W. Nelson asked. Cassidy said the pledge has religious elements but is not a religious exercise.

Newdow said the pledge has "tons of religious significance. That's why everyone gets so angry when we talk about ... taking it out."

Nelson asked Cassidy whether removing the words "under God" would make the pledge any less patriotic.

"Not necessarily," he replied, arguing it provided a historical context, not a religious one.

Congress added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, and passed a law requiring all U.S. currency to carry the motto "In God We Trust" a year later. Congress first authorized a reference to God on money in 1864.

In describing the historical context for use of the word "God," the government cited the Declaration of Independence, which states that all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."

In 2005, Newdow sued Congress and several federal officials, arguing the motto's presence on coins and currency violated his First Amendment rights. A federal judge in Sacramento ruled against him last year, and Newdow appealed.

On Tuesday, Justice Department lawyer Lowell Sturgill Jr. said "In God We Trust" is not an endorsement of a particular faith, but simply a patriotic or ceremonial message.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt indicated support for Newdow's position.

The "In God We Trust" motto "affects Mr. Newdow every moment of his life," Reinhardt said. "The government has no compelling interest to put a slogan on a dollar bill."

Newdow said he didn't advocate hostility toward God or religion and respected people's right to their own beliefs. He said he wanted equal respect for atheists.

About 20 Newdow supporters in the courtroom and outside the courthouse wore T-shirts touting evolution and atheism and carried signs supporting the separation of church and state.

Prosecutor James Williams said the "perpetrator" in that famous California case "got away with it."

Allen Snyder, who was then sentenced to die for killing his estranged wife's friend, claims the prosecutor unconstitutionally excluded prospective black jurors. Snyder said the prosecutor's reference during the 1996 trial to Simpson, who a year earlier was acquitted of killing his ex-wife and her friend, helped reveal his biased intent.

The justices appeared divided over the case, which could clarify standards for defendants who claim racial bias in jury selection. An overriding question is how deeply appeals courts should scrutinize the circumstances when a prosecutor purges blacks from a jury and a judge accepts the reasons as race-neutral, for example, that a potential juror seemed nervous.

A 1986 case, Batson v. Kentucky, bars prosecutors from using their allotted "peremptory," or discretionary, challenges during jury selection to strike someone because of race. The justices have emphasized in recent rulings that the exclusion of minorities undermines the integrity of the justice system.

Zachariah Blanton, 18, of Gaston, had been scheduled to stand trial next week on charges of murder, attempted murder and criminal recklessness. He pleaded guilty in Jackson Circuit Court to lesser charges of voluntary manslaughter with a deadly weapon and criminal recklessness.

A judge must still approve Blanton's deal with prosecutors. Sentencing is set for Dec. 27, and Blanton could receive anything between 20 years and 50 years in prison.

Prosecutors say Blanton fired his hunting rifle into highway traffic from an overpass about 60 miles south of Indianapolis on July 23, 2006.

One of the shots went through a pickup truck's windshield and killed 40-year-old Jerry L. Ross. An Iowa man traveling in another pickup truck was injured.

Police say Blanton later shot at cars along another highway northeast of Indianapolis, but no one was injured. Blanton, who was 17 at the time, was arrested at his home two days later.

Blanton's defense attorney did not publicly comment after court and did not immediately return a phone call.

Blanton confessed to the shooting and provided police with details, police have said. Blanton told police he fired the shots to relieve pressure after he argued with fellow participants in a southern Indiana hunting trip. Blanton confirmed the motive in court Monday.

Ross's relatives, wearing "Justice for Jerry" buttons outside the courthouse, said they were unhappy with the deal.

His father, 70-year-old Jesse Ross, said a jury should decide Blanton's fate.

"Twelve people would be about as fair as it could be, it couldn't get no better than that," he said. "I don't think this is right, the way they're doing it. All we want is a fair trial because you can't bring nothing back."

Blanton "committed those crimes, he should be standing trial for them," said Jerry's twin brother, Terry Ross, who was in the truck with his brother when he was shot. "He didn't give Jerry any kind of a deal."

Prosecutor Rick Poynter said he had to make the deal based on the strength of his case. He noted that the judge had ruled that statements Blanton gave police were inadmissible.

If Blanton had been convicted of murder, he could have faced 45 to 65 years in prison. But Poynter said the jury also could have acquitted him or found him guilty of reckless homicide, a lesser crime punishable by two to eight years in prison.

Poynter said that although he understood the family's reaction, "I think they would be a lot more emotional if the killer of their loved one walked out of jail in four years."

Michael Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer, sued the Elk Grove Unified School District in 2000 for forcing public school children to recite the pledge, saying it was unconstitutional.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Newdow's favor in 2002, but two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Newdow lacked standing to sue because he didn't have custody of the daughter on whose behalf he brought the case. He immediately filed a second lawsuit on behalf of three unidentified parents and their children.

In 2005, a federal judge in Sacramento found in favor of Newdow, ruling the pledge was unconstitutional because its reference to "one nation under God" violates children's rights to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." The judge said he was following the precedent set by the 9th Circuit Court's ruling in Newdow's first case.

A three-judge panel from that court was to hear arguments in the case on Tuesday. The same panel also was to hear arguments in Newdow's case against the national motto, "In God We Trust."

In 2005, Newdow sued Congress and several federal officials, arguing that making money with the motto on it violated the First Amendment clause requiring the separation of church and state.

Last year, a federal judge in Sacramento disagreed, saying the words did not violate Newdow's atheism. Newdow appealed.

Congress first authorized a reference to God on a two-cent piece in 1864. In 1955, the year after lawmakers added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, Congress passed a law requiring all U.S. currency to carry the motto "In God We Trust."

The state said Mississippi courts examined Hodges' claims and determined they lacked merit.

"Miller's commitment papers...clearly show that this was his first commitment," state Attorney General Jim Hood told the court.

Under prior Supreme Court rulings, defendants have to show that their lawyer was deficient and that the outcome probably would have been different with competent representation.