As I noted in yesterday's posting, the Fourth Circuit in the Lambeth case has rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to the inscription “In God We Trust” on the a building housing county courts and offices in Lexington, NC. The court’s approach was fairly standard: it applied the 3-prong test of Lemon v. Kurtzman. However, the case demonstrates how little it now takes to satisfy the first prong of that test, that there be a “secular purpose” behind the statute.
The Court emphasized that the secular purpose need not be the predominant purpose. All that is needed is “a” legitimate secular purpose. It said: “the demonstration of such a legitimate secular purpose is "a fairly low hurdle."…. Indeed, we will deem the first prong of the Lemon test to be contravened "only if [the action] is ‘entirely motivated by a purpose to advance religion.’" …. A legitimate secular purpose is thus sufficient to pass muster… unless the alleged secular purpose is in fact pretextual….”
As press reports from the AP note this morning, in 2002 the cost of the inscription was paid for by donations from individuals and churches. The 4th Circuit’s opinion itself noted: “The Complaint alleges that Board members, and members of the public as well, "emphasized" at the Board meeting the religious nature of the phrase "In God We Trust"…. [O]ne Board member observed that voting against the installation of the display would be perceived by the public as a vote against God. [T]he Complaint also alleges that "the fact that these words are also the national motto was mentioned but not emphasized at the meeting at which defendant authorized the display."”
The 4th Circuit may have correctly summarized the current state of the law, but if that is so, is there anything left to the “secular purpose” requirement of Lemon?
