I thought they ruled that the case to be thrown out completely because Michael Newdow had no legal standing for bringing the case forward since he was not the legal guardian of his daughter.
If that is the case and it was thrown out completely then the the 9th Circuit ruling would not stand since there was no legal grounds for the case. The schools went back to allowing the pledge to be said which would mean that the 9th circuit ruling was thrower out also and that means there is no precedent.
Correct me if I wrong, but that is the way I understood it at the time.
Here's what I found from AP (David Kravets writer)
SAN FRANCISCO - Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.