346 F. Supp. 3d 211
D.D.C.2018Background
- Perrier-Bilbo, a French national, applied for U.S. naturalization; after an initial application was administratively abandoned she filed a second application that was granted and she was scheduled for a public oath ceremony.
- She objects to the phrase "so help me God" at the end of the statutory naturalization oath and requested either omission of the phrase for all participants or a ceremony in which the official administering the oath would also omit the phrase.
- USCIS offered two accommodations: (1) allow her to omit the phrase while participating in the public ceremony, or (2) conduct a private ceremony in which the oath would be modified to exclude the phrase; USCIS warned that failure to choose could lead to denial for abandonment.
- Perrier-Bilbo declined those options, sued USCIS and its director alleging violations of the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, RFRA, and Fifth Amendment equal protection and due process, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief banning the phrase from future naturalization ceremonies plus reimbursement of fees.
- The Court treated defendants' motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment and granted judgment for the government, dismissing all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Perrier-Bilbo said she suffered concrete injury (rescheduled ceremonies, extra fees) and seeks relief that would redress it. | Defendants argued injury was not fairly traceable to them or was caused by court procedures. | Court: Plaintiff has Article III standing; injury traceable to USCIS and redressable. |
| Establishment Clause | The phrase "so help me God" in the official oath endorses religion and coerces participation; must be excluded from public ceremonies. | Phrase is historical, ceremonial, nonsectarian; longstanding tradition and accommodations are available. | Court: Inclusion does not violate Establishment Clause—historical practice and lack of coercion distinguish it as permissible ceremonial recognition. |
| Free Exercise Clause | Requiring presence at a ceremony containing the phrase burdens her religious beliefs; private or silent alternatives are insufficient. | No coercion: she need not speak the words and a private modified oath is available; mere exposure is not compulsion. | Court: No Free Exercise violation—options to omit or privately affirm avoid coercion; mere exposure insufficient. |
| RFRA | Inclusion substantially burdens her exercise of religion by denying equal participation in the public ceremony. | The options provided (omit phrase or private ceremony) avoid a substantial burden; government interest justifies regulation if any burden exists. | Court: No substantial burden under RFRA—silence or private ceremony are only minor burdens and not legally cognizable substantial pressure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 565 (historical/ceremonial prayer practice and noncoercion analysis)
- Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (historical practice supports constitutionality of legislative prayer)
- Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (historical references to religious language in public life and oaths)
- Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (permissibility of certain accommodation practices and courtroom oaths)
- Freedom From Religion Found. v. Hanover Sch. Dist., 626 F.3d 1 (First Circuit: "under God"/Pledge issues; exposure not coercion)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (redressability requirement for standing)