Written by Don Byrd
Several courts previously have found no church-state problem with placing the motto “In God We Trust” on currency. Yesterday, the 2nd Circuit joined the chorus, affirming the dismissal of a case brought by the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
The court swiftly rejected both central arguments brought by the plaintiffs. First, they said, the motto does not indicate an improper endorsement of religion by the government. While the Supreme Court has not ruled directly on the issue of currency, they have mentioned it as being acceptable in other decisions because it is merely an “acknowledgement” of religion.
Second, the court said placing the motto on money does not violate the free exercise rights under RFRA of those forced to carry it, because it does not pose a “substantial burden” necessitating a compelling government interest. Here’s a clip from the opinion (quoting a 1977 case about license plates, Wooley v. Maynard):
As the Supreme Court has previously indicated, the carrying of currency, which is fungible and not publicly displayed, does not implicate concerns that its bearer will be forced to proclaim a viewpoint contrary to his own. . . . Currency is generally carried in a purse or pocket and need not be displayed to the public. The bearer of currency is thus not required to publicly advertise the national motto.”
Courts have consistently come to the same conclusion regarding the motto on currency. Reading the RFRA analysis, however, I wonder: what if some RFRA proponents had their way and the standard was not a “substantial burden”, but instead any burden at all triggered the compelling interest test? Would that have complicated the argument?
