Atheists lose latest legal fight over ‘In God We Trust’

[rug]

Lauren Markoe | May 28, 2014

(RNS) Atheists lost their case against the “In God We Trust” motto on the nation’s currency Wednesday (May 28).

It’s a battle they have lost several times before, as court after court has affirmed that printing and engraving the country’s motto on its money does not violate the U.S. Constitution.

The plaintiffs, a group that included humanists and minor children, argued before a federal appeals court that the words amount to a government endorsement of religion, disallowed by the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. They further held that, forced to carry around a religious statement in their pockets and pocketbooks, their constitutionally guaranteed right to freely exercise religion is being violated.

But the three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York noted that the courts have long looked at the motto not so much as the entanglement of government in religion, but as a more general statement of optimism and a “reference to the country’s religious heritage.”

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/05/28/atheists-lose-latest-legal-fight-god-trust/

The decision:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/86a3e754-4357-47a9-80d9-b5e20a7eb186/2/doc/13-4049_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/86a3e754-4357-47a9-80d9-b5e20a7eb186/2/hilite/

[edhopper]

1. And the tortured logic

that allows this goes on unabated.
It was and has always remained a religious statement.

[AtheistCrusader]

2. 'It’s a battle the court has gotten wrong several times before'

[okasha]

3. Get back to me

when they get the slaveholders' and war criminals' portraits off the currency.

[edhopper]

19. Those things are not

unconstitutional. The motto clearly is.

[cbayer]

20. I agree with that and it is the crux of the matter.

While I would favor more cultural sensitivity in our icons, it's the religious aspects that are the violation.

[okasha]

23. True.

That's the Constitutional issue, and it's important.

But honoring two of the principal architects of the Native American Holocaust--Jackson and Grant--goes well beyond cultural insensitivity. It endorses the murder and dispossion of millions of people.

[cbayer]

24. You are right and I apologize if it came across as minimalizing it.

It should be addressed. Perhaps this is our next civil rights frontier, okasha.

It would be my privilege to work with you on it.

[okasha]

25. No offense taken.

And your participation and support will be heartily welcomed.

[cbayer]

4. Does this mean they can take it to SCOTUS now? I would like to see that happen.

[struggle4progress]

6. Nobody who wants the slogan off the coinage should be pushing these cases towards today's SCOTUS

because they'll certainly lose there and so solidify current practice

[cbayer]

7. Very good point. I was thinking too narrowly.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. I'm not a fan of stacking the deck.

A credible case should be brought, regardless of my assumption of the prejudices of the court.

I realize that this position incurs risk. But it's the right way to approach.

[struggle4progress]

16. Aronow v. US resolved the matter in the 9th Circuit over forty years ago

The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal then and a decade ago cited Aronow in Elk Grove v. Newdow, signalling approval

So we know where the matter currently stands. Successfully pushing a case into the Supreme Court can only change the law in an unfortunate direction, by producing a more conservative 5-4 opinion

[pinto]

8. The Appelate Court references previous SCOTUS decisions in re. the Establishment Clause.

I think SCOTUS would uphold this decision if they take an appeal. My personal take - I think this is kind of futile and the time and effort may be better directed to larger church / state situations. That said the “reference to our religious heritage” comment is troubling. That's a slippery slope.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/86a3e754-4357-47a9-80d9-b5e20a7eb186/2/doc/13-4049_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/86a3e754-4357-47a9-80d9-b5e20a7eb186/2/hilite/

A. The Establishment Clause

The First Amendment of the Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. '

In Lemon v. Kurtzman , 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the Supreme Court held that, in order to comply with the Establishment Clause: “First, the statute [at issue] must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances or inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.”

Although the Supreme Court has, in some cases, criticized or declined to apply Lemon, see, e.g., Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 685 (2005), we have previously held that Lemon remains the prevailing test in this Circuit, absent its abrogation.

See Bronx Household of Faith v. Bd. of Educ. of City of New York , 650 F.3d 30, 40 n.9 (2d Cir. 2011).

Both the appellants and the appellees agree that only the first and second prongs of the Lemon test are at issue in this case.

As the Supreme Court has repeatedly indicated in dicta, the statutes at issue in this case have a secular purpose and neither
advance nor inhibit religion. The Court has recognized in a number of its cases that the motto, and its inclusion in the design of
U.S. currency, is a “reference to our religious heritage.”

Lynch v. Donnelly , 465 U.S. 668, 676 (1984); see also Cnty. of Allegheny v. Am. Civil Liberties Union Greater Pitts. Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 625 (1989).

[cbayer]

9. Yeah, I really jumped the gun on this.

[pinto]

12. What's your take on the “reference to our religious heritage” comment?

If only they had stated "heritages" and gave some sort of nod to those being a part of the bigger picture of what makes up the American heritage, as a whole, I'd find it more acceptable. As is, it seems a bit limiting or exclusionary.

Or maybe, I may just be parsing this too much. lol, wouldn't be the first time.

[cbayer]

14. Well, heritage is better than roots but maybe history would have been better.

There is indeed a religious history that is an important part of the establishment of this country, but I disagree with their take on this.

I think it should be removed, even if it made sense at the time. It's unnecessary and excludes/offends an important part of the population.

[rug]

13. That would be the next step, if the Supreme Court grants certiorari.

[cbayer]

15. What would you guess would happen if it went?

[rug]

17. This is a relatively short decision, chockful of precedent from other Circuits.

I think it's a classic STFU opinion.

I don't think SCOTUS will take it at this time.

They'll take cases on unsettled law of national importance or if there is a division among the Circuits.

This opinion was designed to defeat a certioari petition.

One thing the plaintiffs can do is ask the entire Circuit, rather than this three judge panel, to reconsider it. They might get lucky.

[cbayer]

18. Thanks for that. I don't really understand but I trust your take on this.

Sound like they might have little to lose by taking it to the entire circuit.

[cleanhippie]

21. "ask the entire Circuit, rather than this three judge panel, to reconsider it"

How does that work and what is the downside of doing that? And is that considered an appeal?

Serious question, no BS.

[rug]

22. Here's the Rule.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_35

Normally appeals from the U.S. District Court (the trial court) to its Circuit Court of Appeals are assigned to a panel of three judges drawn from the members of that Circuit's Court of Appeals.

In certain circumstances, laid out in this Rule, the losing party may ask the entire Court of Appeals to rehear the appeal. When that happens, the appeal is heard en banc, i.e., by all the judges of that Circuit Court of Appeals rather than by a panel selected from it.

Technically, it's not an appeal but a reconsideration, or rehearing, of the issue by the same Court, this time by the entire Court.

Here's more info on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_banc

[cleanhippie]

26. Thank you for this info.

Whats the success rate of this tactic? And does it prevent further appeals higher up the court food-chain?

[rug]

29. The success rate is very low.

If they don't take it en banc, the panel decision can be appealed, if the Supreme Court accepts it. There are very few case the Supreme Court must take. If they do hear it en banc, then permission to appeal that can be sought from the Supreme Court.

[cleanhippie]

31. Makes me wonder why this would even be a consideration.

Thanks again. Much appreciated.

[pinto]

27. That would be interesting. The 2nd Circuit is NY State, Connecticut and Vermont.

[Leontius]

28. Isn't rare for the full court to rule differently don't they usually just confirm the 3 judge panel.

[rug]

30. Very rare for the full Court to hear it. Rarer still to rule differently.

[struggle4progress]

5. Suits like this aren't going anywhere any time in the foreseeable future

I think it's poor taste to have the motto on coins, but nobody regards it as imposing a religious requirement, and in fact it's been a very common store joke for a hundred years: "In God we trust-- all others pay cash"

[AtheistCrusader]

10. At the end of the day, it doesn't say it on my visa, so, I think the problem is going away

one way or another. I don't carry cash.