Local experts agreed the Supreme Court’s decision Tuesday to decide whether it’s unconstitutional for children in public schools to pledge their allegiance to “one nation under God” will be no easy task.

Sometime next year, the high court will hear the case of a California atheist who objects to the Pledge led daily by his 9-year-old daughter’s teacher. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed with Michael Newdow last year, and the ruling set off a national uproar.

The Pledge of Allegiance case pushes the court into an emotional argument over religion, patriotism and schools. Activists on both sides of the church-state divide immediately predicted one of the most significant, and wrenching, rulings in the court’s modern history.

Hector Avalos, associate professor of religious studies, said he was not surprised by the high court’s decision to review the case because the “Supreme Court tends to be more conservative.”

Proponents of retaining the “under God” phrase in the pledge will argue the phrase is not used in a religious context, but rather in a historical context, Avalos said. If the phrase is found to be used in a religious context, it will be argued it simply reflects the foundations of our country, just as the Supreme Court opens with attributions to religion and God.

Opponents of the “under God” phrase will argue the phrase was not a part of the pledge until 1954, thus it isn’t part of our history from the beginning, Avalos said. They will also argue the phrase is a violation of the First Amendment establishment clause, which states government is restricted from favoring any type of religion.

Avalos said if the decision were made to remove the “under God” phrase from the Pledge, many other changes may occur, such as removal of the “In God We Trust” phrase from U.S. money.

Avalos disagreed with the assumption that many of the groups lobbying for the removal of the ‘under God’ phrase are atheists.

“It’s not just atheists that would advocate removal of the phrase,” he said. “There are some Christian groups that have objected to saying the pledge at all.

“For Jehovah’s Witnesses, saying the pledge is adultery because they’re breaking one of the Ten Commandments by swearing to a banner and not to God.”

Michael Levine, attorney for ISU Student Legal Services, said he thought the Supreme Court believed it was time to address the issue.

“I think the courts are mindful of the issues that are involved in cases that deal with the First Amendment establishment clause, like the Ten Commandments sculpture in Alabama,” Levine said.

He said the ruling of the high court will “depend on the makeup of the court and the arguments made.”

“My guess is [the ruling] will be upheld in the Supreme Court,” Levine said. “I think they will find that the use of the [‘under God’] phrase is not fostering or promoting the establishment of religion in violation of the Constitution.”

Craig Hastings, attorney at Hastings and Gartin LLP, 409 Duff Ave., said he was surprised to hear the Supreme Court would take on the case.

“They hear so few [cases], and so any time they take one on, you know it’s a very important one,” Hastings said. “[The Supreme Court] has shown a willingness to take on the cultural war.”

Hastings agreed with Levine in saying it will be difficult for the Supreme Court to overrule the lower court’s decision.

Avalos said it’s up in the air how the Supreme Court will rule.

“I think if anyone tells you they can predict [the Court’s decision], they probably have no idea,” he said. “I can only venture to guess [the Court’s decision].”

GP Foote, member of the Campus Crusade for Christ, said he believes it’s “a waste of time for the Supreme Court to review the case.” He believes the ‘under God’ phrase should remain in the pledge.

“I feel like it’s the heritage of our culture to be God-worshipping people,” Foote said. “The vast majority of surveys have found that up to 90 percent of people believe in a supreme God.

“I believe that submission to God is a basis for our principles and laws of the land.”

God was not part of the original Pledge written in 1892 and was adopted by Congress 50 years later as a wartime patriotic tribute. Congress inserted the “under God” phrase in 1954, when the world had moved from hot war to cold and U.S. religious leaders sermonized against “godless communists.”

In a surprise announcement Tuesday, Justice Antonin Scalia said he will not take part in the case. Scalia’s absence sets up the possibility that the remaining eight justices could deadlock, affirming the 9th Circuit’s ban on the religious reference.

The ban would apply to 9.6 million schoolchildren in the nine states the court oversees, which includes California, Oregon, Nevada, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Arizona, Hawaii and Alaska, as well as Guam.

Public schoolchildren elsewhere in the country could still recite the “under God” version.

— The Associated Press contributed to this article.