Define: Allegiance

Allegiance, in legal terms, refers to the loyalty and fidelity that individuals owe to their sovereign or government. It is a concept rooted in citizenship and nationality, where individuals pledge their commitment and obedience to the ruling authority in exchange for protection, rights, and privileges. Allegiance is often formalized through oaths, pledges, or declarations of loyalty, and it may be required as a condition of citizenship or residency in a particular country. The concept of allegiance encompasses both a duty of loyalty to one’s country and a reciprocal obligation of protection and governance by the government. While allegiance is a fundamental principle of citizenship, its scope and implications may vary depending on the laws, customs, and political systems of different countries. In some cases, allegiance may be considered an essential requirement for citizenship, while in others, it may be subject to legal or moral limitations, such as freedom of conscience or the right to dissent.

Allegiance refers to the loyalty and commitment that an individual owes to their country or government. It is a legal concept that establishes the duty of citizens to support and defend their nation, its laws, and its interests. Allegiance is typically expressed through various means, such as taking an oath of allegiance, serving in the military, paying taxes, and obeying the laws of the land.

In many countries, allegiance is a fundamental requirement for citizenship and is often a prerequisite for enjoying the rights and privileges that come with it. Failure to demonstrate allegiance or acts that undermine national interests can lead to consequences, such as loss of citizenship, deportation, or criminal charges.

The concept of allegiance is deeply rooted in constitutional and statutory provisions, which outline the rights and responsibilities of citizens. These provisions may also establish the legal framework for enforcing allegiance, including penalties for acts of treason or sedition.

Courts play a crucial role in interpreting and applying laws related to allegiance. They may be called upon to determine whether an individual’s actions or statements demonstrate a lack of allegiance or constitute a breach of loyalty to the country. Such cases often involve complex legal and factual considerations, requiring a careful analysis of the evidence and applicable legal principles.

Overall, allegiance is a fundamental aspect of citizenship and plays a vital role in maintaining the stability, security, and integrity of a nation. It is a legal duty that citizens are expected to uphold, and failure to do so can have serious legal consequences.

In English Law, the duty of loyalty and obedience owed by all persons born within the king’s realm that attaches immediately upon their birth and that they cannot be relieved of by their own actions.

In U.S. law, the obligation of fidelity and obedience that is owed by native-born and naturalized American citizens to the United States that cannot be relinquished without the consent of the government expressed by a statutory enactment.

The act of swearing allegiance to the country, its laws, and its government is a bedrock requirement of U.S. citizenship reflected in both state and federal law. Before foreign citizens may lawfully immigrate to the United States, they must take an oath renouncing their allegiance to all foreign sovereigns and swearing their allegiance to the laws and constitution of the U.S. government. 8 USCA § 1448. The U.S. Constitution itself requires state and federal legislators, judicial officers, and executive branch officials to take an oath or affirmation to support its provisions. USCA CONST Art. VI cl. 3.

Public school children in many states learn to recite the Pledge of Allegiance from a young age. Twenty-five states plus the territory of Guam require public school teachers to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in class. Seven states leave it up to the individual school districts within their jurisdiction, while three states give individual teachers or administrators the discretion to post or read the pledge.

But swearing allegiance to the government is not always the most important value recognized by U.S. law. Having won its independence and liberty from England through a bloody revolution, the United States has a long and proud history of respecting freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to dissent in its participatory democracy. In fact, one reason many Americans have remained steadfastly loyal to their country is that U.S. laws protect their right to dissent, protest, demonstrate, and criticize the government.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in striking down a state law that compelled public school students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, drew upon this history when it wrote that if “there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943) (See Flag Salute Cases).

After the Supreme Court announced its decision in Barnette, neither the state nor federal governments could lawfully compel public school children to recite the pledge, though they could require school teachers and administrators to lead the pledge, so long as they allowed students the right to abstain from reciting it themselves. But the Barnette decision did not end the controversy over the Pledge of Allegiance. In 1954 Congress changed the official version of the pledge to include a statement that the United States is “one nation under God.” 4 USCA § 4.

The reference to a deity in the pledge has prompted several constitutional challenges since Congress amended the official version. Most often these challenges are raised under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which generally forbids the state and federal governments from “establishing” an official religion within their jurisdiction. But like U.S. currency that carries the motto “In God We Trust,” Congressional sessions that open with prayers led by paid chaplains, and court sessions that begin by asking that “God save this honourable court,” nearly every court reviewing the “under God” reference in the Pledge of Allegiance has found the reference to raise only trifling or de minimus Establishment Clause concerns. e.g., Sherman v. Community Consol. School District, 980 F.2d 437 (7th Cir. 1992).

The one exception to the de minimus holdings came when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue. In holding that the “under God” language violated Establishment Clause principles, the Ninth Circuit relied heavily on two U.S. Supreme court cases, Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 1355, 79 L.Ed.2d 604 (1984) and lee v. weisman 505U.S. 577, 112 S.Ct. 2649, 120 L.Ed.2d 467 (1992).

In Lynch, the Supreme Court applied what it called the endorsement test, under which alleged Establishment Clause violations are evaluated to determine whether the government has endorsed religion by sending a message to nonbelievers that they are outsiders and not full members of the political community and an accompanying message to believers that they are insiders and favored members of the political community. In Lee the Supreme Court applied what it called the coercion test to strike down invocations of non-sectarian prayers at public school graduation ceremonies, finding that the school district’s supervision and control of the graduation ceremony put impermissible pressure on students to participate in or at least show respect during the prayer.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that the “under God” reference in the Pledge of Allegiance similarly had a coercive effect on young and impressionable school children who are forced to watch their peers stand and recite the pledge. It placed the school children in an “untenable position of choosing between participating in an exercise with religious content or protesting,” the court wrote.

To recite the pledge “is not to describe the United States,” the Ninth Circuit continued. Instead,”it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and—since 1954—monotheism.” According to the Ninth Circuit, “a profession that we are a nation ‘under God’ is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation ‘under Jesus’ … a nation ‘under Zeus’ or a nation ‘under no god.'” None of these statements, the court argued, is neutral with respect to religion. “The school district’s practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge aims to inculcate in students a respect for the ideals set forth in the Pledge, including the religious values it incorporates.” Thus, the Ninth Circuit declared that the “under God” reference in the Pledge of Allegiance violated the Establishment Clause.

Coming less than a year after the September 11th terrorist attacks of 2001 in New York City and Washington, D.C., the Ninth Circuit’s decision generated a maelstrom of disapproval across the country. The U.S. Senate condemned the decision 99-0 on the day the court released its opinion. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a similar resolution by a 416-3 vote. President George W. Bush declared that the Ninth Circuit was “out of step” with the rest of the country.

On June 27, 2002, one day after a three-judge panel released the decision for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the full court voted to stay the decision pending further consideration. The stay led many observers to speculate that the Ninth Circuit might reverse itself. However, on February 28, 2003, the full court reinstated its holding that the school district’s policy of requiring teacher-led recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by impermissibly coercing a religious act, Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 328 F.3d 466 (9th Cir. 2003). However, in its new amended opinion, the Ninth Circuit declined to rule on the constitutionality of the “under God” language in the federal statute. U.S. Solicitor general Theodore Olson filed a petition for writ of certiorari on April 30, 2003, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

This site contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. Persuing this glossary does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

This glossary post was last updated: 29th March 2024.