Judge Harold Baer
Atheists and secular humanists—and associations committed to the values of atheism and the separation of church and state—claimed injury by United States currency stating "In God We Trust." Plaintiffs asserted that the motto's inclusion on currency violated the U.S. Constitution's Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). District court dismissed suit for failure to state a claim. Discussing the first two tests in Lemon v. Kurtzman, it noted the Supreme Court repeatedly assumed the motto's secular purpose—including the solemnization of public occasions and expression of confidence in the future—and that the Ninth, Fifth, Tenth and D.C. circuits found no constitutional violation by the motto's inclusion on currency. The concurring and dissenting opinions in Lynch v. Donnelly shared the majority's view that the motto's placement on currency was constitutionally sound. As to their Free Exercise Clause and RFRA claims, plaintiffs failed to show themselves "substantially burdened." Distinguishing Wooley v. Maynard, the court observed that there was no showing of government coercion, penalty or denial of benefits linked to the use of currency or the endorsement of the motto.
