954 F.3d 413
1st Cir.2020Background
- Olga Paule Perrier-Bilbo, an avowed atheist, applied for U.S. naturalization and objected to the oath language that concludes "so help me God." 8 C.F.R. § 337.1(a) includes that phrase as an option.
- Perrier-Bilbo asked USCIS to administer the oath without the phrase; USCIS offered two accommodations: remain silent during the phrase at a public ceremony or attend a private ceremony in modified form (8 C.F.R. § 337.1(b)).
- Her first application was administratively closed as abandoned after procedural communications with the Boston Field Office; she filed a second application and paid $680. A later in-court naturalization ceremony was delayed when she objected.
- She sued the United States and the USCIS Director, claiming violations of the Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause, RFRA, and the Fifth Amendment (equal protection and procedural due process), and sought an injunction and reimbursement of fees.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Government; Perrier-Bilbo appealed. The First Circuit affirmed, holding the phrase constitutional under the American Legion framework, and rejecting her Free Exercise, RFRA, equal protection, and due process claims; a post-judgment fee-reimbursement claim was not properly preserved for appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Establishment Clause: does allowing "so help me God" as a means to complete the naturalization oath violate the Establishment Clause? | Phrase endorses belief in God and prefers religion over nonreligion; regulation forces religious message in a civic rite. | The phrase is part of a longstanding, ceremonial tradition and is optional; no discriminatory intent; American Legion presumption of constitutionality applies. | Court applies American Legion history/tradition presumption; plaintiff fails to show discriminatory intent or deliberate disrespect; phrase constitutional as an optional means of completing the oath. |
| Free Exercise Clause: does the oath coerce affirmance of religion or burden religious belief? | Recitation by others in the ceremony coerces or pressures plaintiff to affirm a belief she rejects. | The practice is neutral and generally applicable; mere exposure or silence option means no coercion. | No coercion shown; remaining silent or using private ceremony avoids compelled affirmation; Free Exercise claim fails. |
| RFRA: does the inclusion of the phrase substantially burden Perrier-Bilbo's exercise of religion? | The options offered force a choice between religious integrity and equal commencement of citizenship; this is a substantial burden. | Government provided reasonable, noncoercive accommodations (silent participation or private affirmation); no substantial burden. | Plaintiff did not prove a substantial burden under RFRA (mere inconvenience insufficient); claim fails. |
| Fifth Amendment (Equal Protection & Procedural Due Process): do the accommodations or enforcement discriminate or deprive liberty/property? | Offering a separate/private ceremony is unequal segregation; procedures around her first application's abandonment violated due process; she seeks fee reimbursement. | Regulation applies equally to all applicants; accommodations are neutral; the post-judgment procedural-due-process theory was not timely raised below. | Equal protection fails (no invidious discrimination); procedural due process claim fails (no protected liberty/property interest shown); reimbursement claim not properly preserved for appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- American Legion v. American Humanist Ass'n, 139 S. Ct. 2067 (2019) (presumption of constitutionality for longstanding, religiously associated monuments/practices)
- Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 565 (2014) (history and tradition inform Establishment Clause analysis; noncoercive legislative prayer upheld)
- Freedom From Religion Found., Inc. v. Hanover Sch. Dist., 626 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (mere exposure to religious language in public school/pedagogical settings does not establish Free Exercise coercion)
- Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (legislative prayer upheld in light of historical practice)
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) (RFRA framework; plaintiff must show substantial burden on sincere religious exercise)
- Emp't Div., Dep't of Human Res. of Or. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (neutral, generally applicable laws do not trigger strict scrutiny under Free Exercise jurisprudence)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) (RFRA supports broad protection for religious exercise)