Coercing students to recite the pledge has been unconsitutional since Barnette.
The state of California does not coerce students into reciting the pledge. They can say it or not.
So yes, the ninth circuit is lying.
The Ninth Circuit also claims that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. Are they lying there?
There opinion is that any recitation of a vouluntary pledge is unconstitutional because it "coerces" students by embarassing them. There is no consitutional right for students or anybody else not to be embarrassed. It is an affront to the first amendment rights of each and every other student who wishes to recite the pledge.
Parents who do not believe in God can simply instruct their kids not to use those words. Parents who do not believe in America can simply inform their children to remain silent.
Lie is a harsh word but it is to the point here. California does not have a law requiring students to recite the pledge.
In short, the Ninth Circuit lied about the individual not having a RTKABA, they are lying about students being coerced by the state to recite the pledge and they will lie about anything that furthers their moral relativist, anti-American agenda.
Some may call it disagreement, I call'em as I see'em.
And after the Satanists become the majority, clearly you won't object to the pledge being revised to "one nation, under Satan,..." and will instruct your child as discussed above?
Somehow I don't think so.