901 F.3d 1015
8th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (individual atheists, children of atheists, and atheist organizations) sued federal officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to stop minting/printing “In God We Trust” on U.S. coins and currency.
- They alleged violations of the Establishment, Free Speech, and Free Exercise Clauses, RFRA, and the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection component.
- The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6); plaintiffs appealed.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo and framed its Establishment Clause analysis under Town of Greece v. Galloway’s historical-practices/coercion approach.
- The court considered (1) historical practices permitting religious acknowledgments by government and (2) whether the motto coerces individuals into religious observance.
- The court affirmed dismissal on all claims: Establishment, Free Speech, Free Exercise/RFRA, and equal protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Establishment Clause: Does printing “In God We Trust” on money establish religion? | Motto is religious/monotheistic, privileges Christianity, and was motivated to promote religion; thus it establishes religion. | Historical practice and precedent show such acknowledgments are permissible and not coercive. | Affirmed: motto accords with historical practice and is not coercive; no Establishment violation. |
| 2. Free Speech: Does the motto compel plaintiffs to convey a government message? | Carrying/using money forces plaintiffs to bear/proselytize an offensive religious message (like Wooley plaintiffs forced to display motto). | Currency is government speech, not readily associated with an individual; bearer is not required to advertise it. | Affirmed: use/possession of currency does not compel plaintiffs’ speech; Wooley distinguishes license plates from money. |
| 3. Free Exercise / RFRA: Does inscription substantially burden religious exercise? | Plaintiffs must either violate conscience by using cash or forgo full economic participation; this is a substantial burden under RFRA. | Statutes are neutral, do not command private action, and alternatives to cash avoid any substantial burden. | Affirmed: statutes neutral; alleged burden is insubstantial and avoidable, so RFRA and Free Exercise claims fail. |
| 4. Equal Protection (Fifth Amendment): Do statutes marginalize atheists or discriminate? | Motto marginalizes atheists and denies equal protection. | Statutes apply equally to all and are rationally related to legitimate government interest in honoring religion’s role. | Affirmed: no suspect classification or discriminatory intent; rational-basis review satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 565 (2014) (Establishment Clause to be interpreted by reference to historical practices and coercion analysis)
- Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984) (governmental acknowledgments of religion can be permissible)
- Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) (state may not force individuals to display ideological messages; distinguishes license plates from currency)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) (RFRA substantial-burden framework and stringent-scrutiny exemption test)
- Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (legislative prayer upheld based on historical practice)
- McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005) (analysis of religious displays and historical/intent considerations)
- Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Emp’t Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981) (definition of substantial burden on religious exercise)