New Doe Child 1 v. Congress of the United States, 891 F.3d 578

Background

Plaintiffs: 43 plaintiffs (mostly Atheist/Humanist individuals, one Jewish individual, two organizations, and some anonymous children/parents) challenged federal statutes requiring the national motto “In God We Trust” on U.S. coins and currency (31 U.S.C. §§ 5112(d)(1), 5114(b)).
Claims: RFRA violation, Free Exercise Clause, Free Speech (compelled-speech), and Equal Protection (stigmatic injury/dignitary harm). Relief sought: declaratory relief and permanent injunction removing the motto from currency.
Core factual allegation: carrying and transacting with currency containing the motto forces plaintiffs to bear, affirm, or proselytize a message contrary to their sincere religious beliefs (and for the Jewish plaintiff, involves sinful printing/destruction of God’s name); avoiding cash imposes burdens on everyday commerce.
Procedural posture: District court dismissed all claims under Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs appealed. Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal in a majority opinion; Judge Moore joined in part and filed a partial dissent on RFRA substantial-burden analysis.
Central legal question(s): whether inscription of the motto on currency (1) substantially burdens plaintiffs’ religious exercise under RFRA; (2) violates Free Exercise, Free Speech (compelled speech), or Equal Protection principles.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
RFRA: substantial burden	Motto on currency forces plaintiffs to choose between violating sincere religious beliefs or foregoing ordinary commerce; thus government substantially burdens religious exercise.	Plaintiffs can avoid cash (credit, checks); many transactions are not cash-only, so burden is at most a mere inconvenience and not "substantial."	Dismissed: plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege substantial burden (no showing of inability to use feasible alternatives).
Free Exercise neutrality	Historical record shows lawmakers intended to promote monotheism; motto on its face associates government with religion and stigmatizes nonbelievers.	Statutes have secular meanings/purposes (national identity, tradition, confidence, patriotism); no evidence of intent to suppress other religions; laws are neutral and generally applicable.	Dismissed: statutes are neutral and generally applicable; incidental burdens are permissible.
Free Speech (compelled speech)	Inscription compels plaintiffs to convey government religious message when they pass currency to others.	Currency is not readily associated with its bearer; Wooley suggests bearer is not required to advertise the motto; no attribution to private carriers.	Dismissed: plaintiffs did not allege attribution and Supreme Court precedent indicates currency does not compel carrier endorsement.
Equal Protection (stigmatic injury)	Motto stigmatizes nonbelievers and denies equal dignity, causing societal bias and personal dignitary harm.	Equal Protection requires disparate treatment; plaintiffs point to general stigmatic harms but not to personalized discriminatory treatment caused by the statutes.	Dismissed: plaintiffs lack standing to sue on stigmatic injury absent showing of discriminatory treatment causally tied to government action.

Key Cases Cited

Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) (RFRA/compelling-interest and accommodations framework)
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014) (RFRA substantial-burden analysis and government burden to show compelling interest/least restrictive means)
Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015) (scope of religious exercise and substantial-burden examples)
Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) (compelled-speech analysis; currency bearer not required to advertise motto)
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (law lacks neutrality if its object is to suppress religion)
Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2239 (2015) (government-speech/attribution framework)
Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass’n, 544 U.S. 550 (2005) (attribution and when compelled subsidies/expressions are government speech)
ACLU of Ohio v. Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd., 243 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (discussion of motto as symbol of common identity; secular purposes)
Livingston Christian Schs. v. Genoa Charter Twp., 858 F.3d 996 (6th Cir. 2017) (functional, fact-driven substantial-burden inquiry under RLUIPA/RFRA guidance)
Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984) (standing limits for stigmatic injury; need for concrete personal denial of equal treatment)