Most people watching this litigation closely thought that Merck ought to win it. Despite the characterizations by Merck so far, I think this was really a loss for them.

There's a lot of pressure because of the concern there might be another terrorist strike in the United States.

It seems to me that it would be relevant to a person's case. I would expect the government to say that it is highly sensitive material, but we have legal mechanisms to balance the national security needs with the rights of defendants.

It seems the government is somewhat vindicated.

The Supreme Court has not directly faced the issue of whether 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First Amendment.

It is a strong endorsement. The question is: How relevant is it? Someone who was on the 3 rd Circuit for a decade and a half and has done a good job is likely to get this rating.