New Jersey Will Allow Candidates To File With Secular Alternative To Oath of Allegiance

As previously reported, in early October a suit was filed in a New Jersey federal district court challenging the New Jersey requirement that candidates filing to run for public office sign an Oath of Allegiance that ends with the phrase "so help me God." In response to this lawsuit, on Oct. 24 the Acting Director of the New Jersey Division of Elections circulated a Memo (full text) to County Clerks stating that now candidates have the option of filing a solemn affirmation or declaration in lieu of an oath, and when that option is chosen, the words "so help me God" are to be omitted. This led the Freedom from Religion Foundation which is counsel for plaintiffs in the October lawsuit to file for voluntary dismissal of the suit.  New Jersey Monitor reports on these developments.

Canadian Court Says Oath to Monarchy Does Not Infringe Sikh Lawyer's Rights

In Wirring v. Law Society of Alberta, (AB KB, Oct. 16, 2023), the Court of King's Bench of the Canadian province of Alberta (sitting as a trial court) rejected a challenge to the oath of allegiance to the British monarch that law school graduates are required to take in order to be admitted to the Law Society and practice law in Alberta. According to the court:

Mr. Wirring is an amritdhari Sikh. He has pledged an absolute oath of allegiance to Akal Purakh, the divine being in the Sikh tradition. Mr. Wirring asserts that the oath of allegiance to the Queen is incompatible with the oath he has sworn to Akal Purakh.

The court held, however, that the oath requirement did not infringe plaintiff's freedom of religion, or his equality rights, that are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court said in part:

[117]  ... [T]he Oath of Allegiance ... should be interpreted ... not as an oath to the Queen as a person, but as a symbolic oath to our constitutional democracy by those seeking to be barristers and solicitors....

[165]      I ... accept Mr. Wirring’s own words that he can only see the Oath of Allegiance as an oath to the Queen. However, and importantly, I do not find that portion of his evidence to be part of his sincerely held religious belief. The conclusion that the Oath of Allegiance is an oath to the Queen is Mr. Wirring’s own legal interpretation....

[166]      ... [T]he interpretation of the Oath of Allegiance is an objective exercise performed by the Court....

[172]      Because I have found the Oath of Allegiance to be symbolic, Mr. Wirring is not required under the LPA to pledge allegiance to a spiritual or secular entity other than Akal Purakh. Therefore, there is no objective interference with Mr. Wirring’s freedom of religion by the state.

[173]      ... [I]t is Mr. Wirring’s misunderstanding of the Oath of Allegiance’s meaning, and not the requirement to take the Oath of Allegiance, which is preventing him from admission to the legal profession in Alberta.

YesPunjab reports on the decision.

Potential Candidate Challenges Religious Oath On New Jersey Candidate Petition Forms

Suit was filed this week in a New Jersey federal district court challenging the New Jersey requirement that candidates filing to run for public office sign an oath that ends with the phrase "so help me God." The complaint (full text) in Tosone v. Way, (D NJ, filed 10/3/2023), alleges that plaintiff, who wishes to run for public office, is unable as a matter of conscience to sign an oath which is religious. Alleging that the current version of the oath violates Article VI of the Constitution, as well as the free speech, free exercise and Establishment Clauses, plaintiff seeks a court order requiring the Secretary of State to provide a form that allows him to run for public office without his swearing "so help me God." New Jersey Monitor reports on the case.

European Court Dismisses Challenges To Irish Constitution's Religious Oaths

In Shortall v. Ireland, (ECHR, Nov. 18, 2021), the European Court of Human Rights dismissed as inadmissible a suit filed by several politicians in Ireland complaining that the Irish Constitution requires the President and members of the Council of State to take oaths containing religious language, without a secular alternative.  The court concluded that none of the litigants were directly affected by the challenged provisions:

[N]one of the applicants have so far been invited to serve on the Council of State, and none claimed that such an appointment was under consideration....

[T]he applicants have not provided any evidence – or even sought to argue – that they could secure the nomination required to stand for election as President.... [T]he applicants ... are seeking to have their victim status accepted, not in the context of a clear, immediate and compelling factual matrix which would allow them to adduce reasonable and convincing evidence that they are at a real risk of being adversely affected by the impugned measure, but rather as a hypothetical outcome, without addressing the very many challenges they would potentially have to overcome to secure that office.

The Court also issued a press release summarizing the decision.

Certiorari Denied In Challenge To "So Help Me God" In Citizenship Oath

 Yesterday the United States Supreme Court denied review in Perrier-Bilbo v. United States, (Docket No. 20-349, certiorari denied 11/9/2020). (Order List.) In the case, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals rejected constitutional challenges to the inclusion of "so help me God" at the end of the oath of allegiance administered at naturalization ceremonies. (See prior posting.)  Friendly Atheist reports on the Supreme Court's action.

Alabama's Voter Registration Oath Is Challenged

Yesterday four Alabama residents filed suit challenging language in Alabama's voter registration form. The oath in the form ends with "so help me God." No secular alternative is available.  The complaint (full text) in Cragun v. Merrill, (ND AL, filed 10/01/2020) contends that the absence of a secular alternative violates the Establishment, Free Exercise, Free Speech and Equal Protection Clauses. Freedom From Religion Foundation issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Irish Court Focuses On Importance of Witness Oath

 N.D. (Albania) v. International Protection Appeals Tribunal, (High Ct. Ireland, Sept. 22, 2020), was a suit brought by an Albanian woman who is challenging her order of deportation from Ireland. The suit seeks review of a decision of Ireland's International Protection Appeals Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the challenge on procedural grounds, while, however, also dealing with petitioners' claim that the Appels Tribunal decision was invalid because no oath was administered to her in the proceeding. The court said in part:

[W]hile the ongoing secularisation of society makes oaths, with their emphasis on religious beliefs, look like a pre-Enlightenment anachronism and an embarrassment, the unfortunate reality is that the oath still has a powerful role in bringing out the truth. There are people who are relatively untroubled about the theoretical civil and criminal consequences of lies to a court or tribunal, but who nonetheless hesitate if asked to call down their deity as a witness to such lies. The rational, bureaucratic, mind fails to appreciate that merely stiffening the criminal penalties for perjury has no effect whatever on that viewpoint.

Irish Legal News Reports on the decision.

1st Circuit OKs "So Help Me God" In Naturalization Oath

In Perrier-Bilbo v. United States, (1st Cir., April 3, 2020), the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals rejected constitutional challenges to the inclusion of "so help me God" at the end of the oath of allegiance administered at naturalization ceremonies. Plaintiff, a French citizen, was offered the options of just not repeating those words during the ceremony or of having a private ceremony where the oath would be administered without that phrase. She rejected these as inadequate.

The court denied plaintiff's Establishment Clause challenge, applying the test used by the Supreme Court in American Legion v. American Humanist Association, saying in part:

We follow the Supreme Court's most recent framework and apply American Legion's presumption of constitutionality to the phrase "so help me God" in the naturalization oath because we consider the inclusion of similar words to be a ceremonial, longstanding practice as an optional means of completing an oath. And because the record does not demonstrate a discriminatory intent in maintaining those words in the oath or "deliberate disrespect" by the inclusion of the words, Perrier-Bilbo cannot overcome the presumption.

Rejecting Plaintiff's Free Exercise claim, the court said in part:

We do not second-guess the sincerity of Perrier-Bilbo's beliefs or her feeling of distress upon hearing the phrase at issue. But even if the phrase offends her, offense "does not equate to coercion," Town of Greece, 572 U.S. at 589, and the Free Exercise Clause does not entitle her to a change in the oath's language as it pertains to others....

The court rejected Plaintiff's argument under RFRA, saying in part:

While she might find the options offered by the Government subjectively burdensome, however, the district court was right to conclude that not every imposition or inconvenience rises to the level of a "substantial burden."

The court also rejected equal protection and due process challenges.  Judge Barron filed a concurring opinion. Free Thinker blog discussed the decision.

New Trial Ordered After Juror Questions Defendant's Taking of Oath

In Davis v. Husain, (NJ App., March 1, 2019), a New Jersey state appellate court, in a hostile work environment case that has already wound its way to the state Supreme Court once, ordered a new trial.  At issue is a statement that was made by one of the jurors raising a question about the testimony of the defendant. The juror noted that defendant, a Hindu, had not placed his hand on the Bible when taking the oath. In earlier proceedings, it was shown that the defendant had acted in this way, at least in part, because of his religious belief that the left hand should never be placed on a holy book.  In ordering a new trial, the appeals court said in part:

The juror's comment regarding the Bible raises the specter of religious bigotry. Whether that concern colored the view of the other jurors is still unknown, with the exception of the juror who appeared. This is a peculiar situation. The Law Division judge said the juror who made the observation was only concerned with Husain's credibility, i.e. that a person who refused to place his hand on the Bible was incapable of taking the oath seriously and was therefore incredible. He contrasted this with out-and-out religious bigotry. But if he was correct, that too is simply impermissible. The exercise of a person's religion should not make him or her per se incredible.

NJ.com reports on the decision.

House Dust Up Over Absence of "So Help Me God" In Oaths By Committee Witnesses

USA Today reported yesterday that Republican Louisiana Congressman Mike Johnson, new chairman of the Republican Study Committee, as well as some other Republicans, are charging that Democrats in the House are making a concerted effort to eliminate the phrase "so hep me God" when they administer oaths to committee witnesses. The charges come after incidents in the House Judiciary Committee and House Natural Resources Committee. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Witnesses May Take Oath on Eagle Feathers In Two More Canadian Provinces

In two more Canadian provinces, Indigenous Peoples will now have the option of taking the oath as a witness using Eagle feathers instead of a Bible.  Earlier this month, the Nova Scotia court system adopted the practice (CBC News). Yesterday it was reported that a similar step was taken at the Lethbridge, Alberta Courthouse. (CBC News).  These follow introdction of the option almost three years ago at the Ottawa, Ontario Courthouse. (CBC News).

"So Help Me God" In Citizenship Oath Upheld

In Perrier-Bilbo v. United States, (D MA, Sept. 28, 2018), a Massachusetts federal district court rejected a challenge to the inclusion of the phrase "so help me God" at the end of the oath of allegiance taken by those becoming citizens of the United States.  Rejecting an Establishment Clause claim, the court said in part:

Like the ceremonial prayer in Town of Greece, the inclusion of "so help me God" in the oath of citizenship "is but a recognition that, since this Nation was founded and until the present day, many Americans deem that their own existence must be understood by precepts far beyond the authority of government to alter or define and that willing participation in civic affairs can be consistent with a brief acknowledgment of their belief in a higher power, always with due respect for those who adhere to other beliefs." ... The regulation providing for the phrase's inclusion in the naturalization oath does not violate the Establishment Clause.

The court also rejected free exercise, RFRA, equal protection and due process challenges.  According to the court:

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") offered her a private induction which would omit the words she finds offensive. Not surprisingly, she wishes to participate in the public ceremony with other new citizens and their families and friends. USCIS welcomed her at such a ceremony, assuring her she need not herself say those four words and her oath of allegiance and United States citizenship would nonetheless be fully valid.

Suit Seeks To Remove "So Help Me God" From Citizenship Oath

According to a press release yesterday from the Raelian Movement, a French national living in Massachusetts who is seeking to become a U.S. citizen has filed suit in federal district court seeking to have the phrase "So help me God" stricken from the citizenship oath.  Olga Paule Perrier-Bilbo is an atheist and says that the required oath violates her religious free exercise rights.  Perrier-Bilbo is represented by activist Michael Newdow who has filed suits in the past seeking to have mention of God removed from currency, the Pledge of Allegiance and the Presidential oath.

Michigan Supreme Court: Wrong Oath For Jurors In Murder Case Does Not Require New Trial

An interesting decision from the Michigan Supreme Court last week illustrates the distance we have moved from the original conception of oaths as invocations of Divine retribution for straying from that which was promised.  In People v. Cain, (MI Sup. Ct., July 23, 2015), the jury in defendant's murder trial were sworn in with the wrong oath, though no one noticed at the time.  The Clerk swore them in using the oath given at voir dire -- to truly answer questions relating to their qualifications to serve as jurors-- instead of the oath to return a true and just verdict based only on the evidence and the judge's instructions. In a 5-2 decision, the majority held that:

the jurors were conscious of the gravity of the task before them and the manner in which that task was to be carried out, the two primary purposes served by the juror’s oath. Thus, we cannot say that the error here of failing to properly swear the jury seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.

Justice Viviano (joined by Justice McCormack) dissented, saying in part:

the oath was, and has always been, a defining criterion of “jury.” In light of this deep etymological pedigree, it seems quite implausible that the Framers, who lived in a time in which society placed great emphasis on oaths, intended anything other than a sworn jury when they drafted the Sixth Amendment.