BOB ABERNETHY, anchor: The Supreme Court this week ruled that the phrase "under God" could remain in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. But it did so on technical grounds. The case had been brought by an atheist who shares custody of a daughter with the child's mother, who is a Christian and favors the "under God" words. The Court held that because of that dispute the father alone did not have the right to bring the suit.

A look at that decision, and how the Court sees church/state issues from legal correspondent Tim O'Brien, who joins us from Providence, Rhode Island.

Tim, welcome. Many commentators have suggested that the Court may have found the "under God" case too "hot to handle" in an election year. How do you see it?

TIM O'BRIEN (Contributing Correspondent, RELIGION & ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY): Well, the Court does handle a lot of hot cases in election years and other years. And they did have a plausible basis for getting out of this one. The fact is the mother and father of this child had never married. The mother had primary custody and she had claimed that not only did she not object to the words "under God," but that her daughter didn't either. So the Court held, in an opinion by Justice Stevens speaking for five justices, that in a situation like this the federal court should really "stay its hand." It should stay out of it. Not only did Dr. Newdow's, the father's interests not parallel those of his daughter's, but they may in fact have been in conflict with them. Better to leave this to the state courts and the family courts.

ABERNETHY: Yeah, but they didn't get at the Constitutional issue, really in the final decision. But that's something that's likely to come back, isn't it, and pretty soon?

Mr. O'BRIEN: Well, it will probably come back. Newdow says he has friends who are fellow atheists who are ready to pick up the mantle tomorrow and pursue another case. But it takes a long time to bring a case to the Supreme Court. Certainly, if it ever gets there, it would be beyond this election. But there's a very good chance of that happening. A lot of people are suggesting, in fact, it's clear the Court did not answer the question on the merits. But there are suggestions, "tea leaves" that can be read, from what the Court did say. Three of the justices -- not a majority -- said they would have upheld the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, that they saw no Constitutional problem with that. The fourth justice, Antonin Scalia, took himself out of the case because he thought the lower court ruling was "off the wall, crazy." He said as much publicly. At the request of Dr. Newdow, he took himself out of the case. So, four of the nine justices already appear poised to uphold the words "under God."