Muslim Woman Sues Under Title VII Over Failure To Accommodate Hijab

A lawsuit was filed in a Virginia federal district court last week against a Hanover, Virginia health care facility by a Muslim woman whose employment as a nursing assistant was terminated because she insisted on wearing a hijab. The complaint (full text) in Brooks v. Medical Facilities of America, Inc., (ED VA, filed 5/31/2018) contends that the employer's refusal to provide a reasonable accommodation violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports on the lawsuit.

En Banc Rehearing Denied In Touro Synagogue Dispute

Yesterday the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals denied an en banc rehearing in  Congregation Jeshuat Israel v. Congregation Shearith Israel (1st Cir., June 7, 2018).  In the case, a 3-judge panel ruled that Rhode Island's historic Touro Synagogue is owned by New York's Shearith Israel congregation. (See prior posting.) Along with the denial order yesterday, the original panel filed a Statement explaining why it opposed a rehearing, and Judge Thompson filed a dissent from the denial of a rehearing.  Reporting on yesterday's decision, the Providence Journal says that Jeshuat Israel plans to seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Suit Seeks Recognition of Non-Religious Wedding Officiants

A suit was filed last week by Center for Inquiry, a secular humanist organization, challenging the limits in Michigan law that prevent secular celebrants from officiating at weddings in the state.  CFI among other things trains individuals how to solemnize marriage ceremonies consistent with secular principles.  The complaint (full text) in Center for Inquiry, Inc. v. Lyons, (WD MI, filed 5/31/2018) contends:

Michigan law, Mich. Comp. Laws § 551.7, which allows people to be married by the religious leaders of their choice, while denying these opportunities to plaintiffs, creates a preference for religion over non-religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution....

The complaint also alleges equal protection violations.  CFI issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Quiero v. Muniz, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80557 (MD PA, May 14, 2018), a Pennsylvania federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations and dismissed an inmate's complaint that his request for a visit from a prison chaplain was rejected.

In Little v. Gens, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80691 (ED WI, May 14, 2018), a Wisconsin federal district court allowed a Muslim inmate to proceed on First Amendment free exercise claim against one defendant who allegedly punished him for exercising his right to perform Wudū. Claims against other defendants were dismissed.

In Hogan v. Idaho State Board of Corrections, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82582 (DD, May 15, 2018), an Idaho federal magistrate judge concluded that sufficient facts had been alleged for a Muslim inmate to move ahead with his claim that he should be permitted to grow four-inch beard and wear a kufi at all times.

In Pouncil v. Sherman, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82761 (ED CA, May 15, 2018), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was wrongfully denied a meal to break his fast on one night of Ramadan.

In Rushdan v. Gear, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82769 (ED CA, May 15, 2018), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a Muslim inmate's complaint that the prison insisted on listing his religious name as an additional name after his commitment name, rather than allowing him to use his religious name solely.

In Sariaslan v. Rackley, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82804 (ED CA, May 15, 2018), a California federal magistrate judge ruled that a Muslim inmate could move ahead with his complaint that he was not permitted to receive a Ramadan religious food package which he ordered.

In Gakuba v. Doe, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84070 (SD IL May 17, 2018), an Illinois federal district court allowed a Jewish inmate to move ahead with his complaint that he was initially denied kosher meals and later was only served them intermittently.

In Thomas v. Wetzel, 2018 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 271 (PA App., May 18, 2018), a Pennsylvania appellate court held that a Muslim inmate could move ahead with his claim that denying him the right to purchase an electric razor violated his religious exercise rights under RLUIPA. The court however dismissed the inmate's claim that denial of access to a computer and printer violated his RUIPA rights.

In Johnson v. Paul, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84974 (SD NY, May 21, 2018), a New York federal district court dismissed with leave to amend an inmate's complaint that he was denied "Jewish meals" and that there were no Jewish religious services especially during "past over month".

In Spearman v. Michigan, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85163 (WD MI, May 22, 2018), a Michigan federal district court allowed an inmate to move ahead against certain defendants on his complaint that authorities refused to recognize his Nuwaubian religion, and refused to provide him with a religious diet or allow him to participate in the Ramadan fast.

Public Accommodation Law Upheld Against Religious Claims In First Post-Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision

In the first case to present issues similar to those in the Supreme Court's Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, an Arizona appellate court has largely vindicated the rights of a same sex couple.  In Brush & Nib Studio, LC v. City of Phoenix, (AZ App, June 7, 2018), owners of an art studio that designs wedding products, citing their Christian religious beliefs, refused to create customer-specific merchandise for same-sex weddings. They sued to obtain an injunction against application of Phoenix's public accommodation anti-discrimination law to them.  Rejecting their free speech argument, the court said in part:

the conduct at issue is not the creation of words or images but the conduct of selling or refusing to sell merchandise—either pre-fabricated or designed to order—equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples. This conduct, even though it may incidentally impact speech, is not speech. Further, allowing a vendor who provides goods and services for marriages and weddings to refuse similar services for gay persons would result in “a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws that ensure equal access to goods, services, and public accommodations.” Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., slip op. at 10.

The court goes on to note:

Although Appellants are prohibited from posting discriminatory statements about their intent to refuse services for same-sex weddings, they may post a statement endorsing their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman and may post a disclaimer explaining that, notwithstanding that belief, Section 18-4(B) requires them to provide goods and services to everyone regardless of sexual orientation. Or they may post a disclaimer that the act of selling their goods and services to same-sex couples does not constitute an endorsement of their customers’ exercise of their constitutional right to marry or any other activities.

The court did, however, strike as unconstitutionally vague a portion of the public accommodation law that prohibited advertisements or notices that states or implies that a person, because of sexual orientation would be "unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, undesirable or not solicited."

The court went on to reject the studio owners' free exercise claims:

Appellants have failed to prove that Section 18-4(B) substantially burdens their religious beliefs.... Appellants are not penalized for expressing their belief that their religion only recognizes the marriage of opposite-sex couples. Nor are Appellants penalized for refusing to create wedding-related merchandise as long as they equally refuse similar services to opposite-sex couples. Section 18-4(B) merely requires that, by operating a place of public accommodation, Appellants provide equal goods and services to customers regardless of sexual orientation. Appellants are free to discontinue selling custom wedding-related merchandise and maintain the operation of Brush & Nib for its other business operations. What Appellants cannot do is use their religion as a shield to discriminate against potential customers.

Slate reports on the decision.

UPDATE: AP reports that that attorneys for Brush & Nib plan an appeal.

Another Court Enjoins Obama Era Contraceptive Mandate On Religious Non-Profits

As it has done in other cases, last week in Grace Schools v. Azar, (ND IN, une 1, 2018), the Trump Administration has conceded that applying the Obama Administration's contraceptive coverage rules to religious non-profits would violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  The court thus issued a permanent injunction against applying the Obama Administration's compromise to Grace College & Theological Seminary.  Ft. Wayne News-Sentinel reports on the decision.

Bermuda Court Invalidates Bar On Same-Sex Marriage

In Ferguson v. Attorney General, (Bermuda Sup. Ct., June 6, 2018), a Bermuda trial court held unconstitutional Bermuda's Domestic Partnership Act 2018 that rejects recognition of same-sex marriage.  The Act was passed to reverse an earlier court decision that held existing anti-discrimination laws validated same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.)  In yesterday's decision, the court held that the effect of the Domestic Partnership Act is to limit those desiring recognition of their same-sex relationship to choosing domestic partnerships. It held that while it is not invalid as a law enacted substantially for religious purposes, it is an invalid infringement of  belief:

Prior to the DPA coming into force, same-sex couples who believed in the institution of marriage could manifest their beliefs by participating in legally recognised marriage ceremonies. Just as PMB and its members genuinely believe that same-sex marriages should not be legally recognised, the Applicants and many others equally sincerely hold opposing beliefs. It is not for secular institutions of Government, without constitutionally valid justification, to direct the way in which a citizen manifests their beliefs.

... The Applicants do not seek the right to compel persons of opposing beliefs to celebrate or enter into same-sex-marriages. They merely seek to enforce the rights of those who share their beliefs to freely manifest them in practice. Persons who passionately believe that same-sex marriages should not take place for religious or cultural reasons are entitled to have those beliefs respected and protected by law. But, in return for the law protecting their own beliefs, they cannot require the law to deprive person who believe in same-sex marriage of respect and legal protection for  their opposing beliefs.

 The court also issued a summary of its decision, and Skift reports on the decision.

Suit Charges Neighborhood With Discrimination Against Hasidic Jews

A religious discrimination lawsuit was filed two weeks ago in a New York federal district court by a number of Hasidic Jews who currently live, have lived, or wish to live in the Woodbury, New York neighborhood of Highland Lake Estates. The complaint (full text) in Stern v. Highland Lake Homeowners Association, (SD NY, filed 5/24.2018) alleges that the Homeowners Association and many of its members have taken actions to discourage more Hasidic Jews from moving into the area and making those who already live there feel unwelcome. The suit seeks $7.5 million in damages.  The Times Herald-Record reports on the lawsuit.

State Department Issues 2017 Report On International Religious Freedom

On May 29, the State Department released its 2017 Report on International Religious Freedom (full text).  In releasing the report, Secretary of State Pompeo said in part:

This report demonstrates the hard work of American diplomats to protect American and universal values. I’m proud of my team in completing this report. The release of the 2017 International Religious Freedom Report is critical to our mission to defend religious liberty. It brings to light the state of religious freedom all over the world. It documents, across 200 countries and territories, reports of violations and abuses committed by governments, terrorist groups, and individuals so that we may work together to solve them....

The world has made important strides, but we still have a lot of work to do. In that regard, I am pleased to announce that the United States will host the first ever Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom at the Department of State on July 25th and 26th of this year.

Canada's Supreme Court: No Right To Fairness Review of Church Tribunal Decision

In Judicial Committee of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Wall, (Can. Sup. Ct., May 31, 2018), Canada's Supreme Court rejected a challenge by a Jehovah's Witness that the church's Judicial Committee breached principles of natural justice and its duty of fairness in disfellowshipping him for sinful behavior.  He argued that the disfellowshipping caused other Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse to become clients of his real estate business. The court held:

[T]here is no free standing right to procedural fairness with respect to decisions taken by voluntary associations. Jurisdiction cannot be established on the sole basis that there is an alleged breach of natural justice or that the complainant has exhausted the organization’s internal processes. Jurisdiction depends on the presence of a legal right which a party seeks to have vindicated. Only where this is so can the courts consider an association’s adherence to its own procedures and (in certain circumstances) the fairness of those procedures.

The court also held that the issue is not justiciable, saying that "courts will not consider the merits of a religious tenet".  A press release by the court summarizes the decision. [Thanks to Nima Nematollahi for the lead.]

Suit Challenges Idaho Invalidation of Pregnant Women's Living Wills

Suit was filed in an Idaho federal district court last week challenging the constitutionality of an Idaho statute that invalidates a woman's health care advance directive if the woman is pregnant.  The complaint (full text) in Almerico v. Denney, (D ID, filed 5/31/2018) alleges in part:

That law improperly infringes on the right to privacy in making medical decisions and subjects women of child bearing age to unequal and demeaning treatment in multiple ways. First, the law on its face eliminates the right of a woman who has been diagnosed as pregnant to have her express decisions about medical treatment, including whether to request or decline life-sustaining measures, honored by her health care providers. Second, the law renders ineffective the right of a woman who has been diagnosed as pregnant to designate her health care agent. Third, because of the law, the effectiveness of the health care directives of all women of childbearing age in Idaho is thrown into question until each woman’s pregnancy status is determined. Additionally, Defendants have exceeded the statute’s mandate by publicly stating that not only will the health care directives of women who have been diagnosed as pregnant be rendered null and void, but they will be forced to receive life-sustaining treatment for the duration of their pregnancies.

Objections To Child's Vaccination Were Not Genuine Religious Beliefs

In Miller v. Dicherry, (LA App, May 29, 2018), a Louisiana state appellate court rejected objections of a mother, who was the domiciliary parent under a joint custody decree, to having her child vaccinated.  The mother argued that she had a First Amendment right to refuse routine vaccinations for her child on religious grounds.  The court held that the mother's objections did not stem from a genuinely held religious beliefs.  It upheld the trial court's grant of authority to the child's father to make the medical decision that the child be vaccinated.  The court said in part:

[T]he trial court found that Ms. Dicharry's "reluctance to have her child vaccinated arises from a personal, moral, or cultural feeling against vaccination for her minor child." The trial court found that "[ t]hese views and feelings are more in the nature of a secular philosophy than a religious belief." Considering the record, we find no manifest error in the trial court's factual determinations.

Settlement Reached In Minnesota Catholic Diocese Bankruptcy

The National Catholic Reporter last week detailed a $210 million settlement with over 400 sexual abuse victims reached by the Diocese of St. Paul- Minneapolis in its bankruptcy reorganization.  $170 million will come from insurers, and $40 million will be paid by the archdiocese and parishes.  It is the largest settlement reached so far in any of the Catholic diocese bankruptcy cases around the country. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk and Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Four USCIRF Appointments Announced

In a May 22 press release, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom announced four recent appointments to the Commission. Kristina Arriaga, previously the executive director of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, was reappointed by House Speaker Paul Ryan.  President Trump has recently appointed Gary L. Bauer, president of American Values; Nadine Maenza, executive director of Patriot Voices; and Johnnie Moore, CEO of The KAIROS Company.

Challenge May Proceed Against School Policy of Disciplining Students Who Refuse To Recite Pledge

In Arceneaux v. Klein Independent School District, (SD TX, May 22, 2018), a Texas federal district court allowed a high school student to move ahead with her free speech, free exercise, and equal protection challenges to a school policy of disciplining and harassing students for sitting during the Pledge of Allegiance.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Perry Dane, Jury Nullification: Features, Bugs, and the Possibility of Granular Law, (Journal of Law Culture and the Humanities, Forthcoming).
• Stephen R. Munzer, Examining Nontherapeutic Circumcision, (28 Health Matrix 1 (2018)).
• Leora F. Eisenstadt, Enemy and Ally: Religion in Loving v. Virginia and Beyond, (Fordham Law Review, Vol. 86, No. 2659, 2018).
• Prakash Shah, Secularism's Threat to Tradition: A Reading of Europe, India and the Limits of Secularism, (Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 277/2018).
• Paul Barker, Vocation, Expressive Conduct, and Religious Liberty, (January 16, 2018).
• Abadir Ibrahim, Religion-State Identification and Religious Freedom in Ethiopia, (Pieter Coertzen, M. Christian Green, and Len Hansen (eds.) Religious Freedom and Religious Pluralism in Africa: Prospects and Limitations (2016)).
• Nuna Zekić, An Open and Diverse European Union?, (Tilburg Law Review, 22 (2017), 259-266).
• Dallan Flake, Religion as Key to Protecting Transgender Employees From Discrimination, (May 15, 2018).
• Johnny Rex Buckles, Unashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: On Public Policy and Public Service by Evangelicals, (41 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 813 (2018)).
• Blaine Hutchison, Protecting Religious Pluralism: How the Liberty that Supports Same-Sex Marriage Protects Religious Convictions, (Regent University Law Review, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2018).

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

• Abdel-Hameed M. Bashir, Reducing Poverty and Income Inequalities: Current Approaches and Islamic Perspective, (Journal of King Abdulaziz University: Islamic Economics, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2018).
• Samantha Bielen, Peter Grajzl & Wim Marneffe, Blame Based on One's Name? Extralegal Disparities in Criminal Conviction and Sentencing, (May 26, 2018).
• Tanya Monforte, Broad Strokes and Bright Lines: A Reconsideration of Shari'a Based Reservations, (May 8, 2018).
• Fajiri Muhammadin & Hanindito Danusatya, De-Secularizing Legal Education in Indonesian Non-Islamic Law Schools: Examining the ‘Introduction to Jurisprudence’ Textbooks on the ‘Norm Classification’ Chapter, (Ulul Albab: Jurnal Studi dan Pemikiran Hukum Islam, Vol. 1, No. 2 (2018)).
• Munawar Iqbal, Poverty, Inequalities and the Perceptions on Distributive Justice, (Journal of King Abdulaziz University: Islamic Economics, Vol. 31, No. 1, January 2018).
• Asad Zaman, An Islamic Approach to Inequality and Poverty, (Journal of King Abdulaziz University: Islamic Economics, Vol. 31, No. 1, January 2018).
• Aaron Z. Pitluck & Adhikari Shikshya, Islamic Banking and Finance in the Global North: Secular Incubators, Elementary Accommodation and Strategic Negligence, (in Mark Woodward and Ronald Lukens-Bull (eds). Handbook of Contemporary Islam and Muslim Lives. Springer, Forthcoming).
• Salman Syed Ali, Issues Involved in the Proposal of ‘A Global Currency to Stabilize the Monetary System, (Journal of King Abdulaziz University: Islamic Economics, Vol. 30, No. 2, July 2017).
• Ihsan Yilmaz, Semi-Official Turkish Muslim Legal Pluralism: Encounters between Secular Official Law and Unofficial Shari’a, (in A. Possamai et al. (eds.), The Sociology of Shari’a: Case Studies from around the World, Boundaries of Religious Freedom: Regulating Religion in Diverse Societies (2015)).

Veteran Has Standing to Challenge Therapist Bill As Establishment Clause Violation

In Copas v. Haslam, (MD TN, May 25, 2018), a Tennessee federal district court held that a gay Army veteran, who also holds a degree in counseling, has standing to bring an Establishment Clause challenge to a Tennessee law that permits therapists to refuse to serve LGBT clients when doing so would violate the therapist's religious beliefs. Plaintiff suffers from PTSD and Chronic Adjustment disorder, and has sought therapy in the past. The court held that plaintiff's claim that he has been marginalized and "made to feel ostracized and
unworthy as a non-adherent to the religiously-based, anti-LGBT preference" in the law is a sufficiently concrete injury to grant standing.  It also held that he has been sufficiently personally injured by the law to satisfy Article III standing requirements for his Establishment Clause claim.  The court however dismissed several equal protection claims made by plaintiff.

Church Sued By Manager of Its Event Space Over LGBTQ Access

A suit seeking $2.375 million in damages against a Portland, Oregon Catholic church was filed in an Oregon state court two weeks ago by a company which alleges that its business relationship with the church was wrongfully terminated.  The complaint (full text) in Holiday Investors, Inc. v. Holy Rosary Church of  Portland, Oregon, Inc., (Cir. Ct., filed 5/22/2018), alleges that plaintiff contracted to operate the Ambridge Event Center, a social hall owned by the church.  Under a morals clause in its contract with the church, plaintiff was not permitted to rent out the event center to persons or organizations affiliated with the LGBTQ community.  When plaintiff, pursuant to this requirement, refused to rent space to an African-American LGBTQ support group for its annual party, it suffered extensive negative publicity.  In an attempt to rehabilitate its reputation, plaintiff, among other things, hired an openly gay man as its events coordinator.  This resulted in the church terminating its contract with plaintiff. Plaintiff sued alleging breach of contract and violation of state anti-discrimination laws.  The Oregonian reports on the lawsuit and sets out further background.  [Thanks to Dusty Hoesly for the lead.]

Supreme Court In Narrow Decision Reverses Order Against Wedding Cake Baker

Today, by a vote of 7-2, the U.S. Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, (Sup. Ct., June 4, 2018), reversed on narrow grounds a Colorado appellate court's decision upholding the state Civil Rights Commission's cease and desist order against a baker who refused on religious grounds to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  The Supreme Court's majority decision, written by Justice Kennedy, focused on what was seen as the unfairness of the hearing provided to the baker by the Commission, and the difference between this case and the approach in others decided by the Commission:

The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws. Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here. When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires.

In reaching that conclusion, the Court acknowledged the difficulties involved in deciding the broader issues posed by the case:

The free speech aspect of this case is difficult, for few persons who have seen a beautiful wedding cake might have thought of its creation as an exercise of protected speech. This is an instructive example, however, of the proposition that the application of constitutional freedoms in new contexts can deepen our understanding of their meaning.

One of the difficulties in this case is that the parties disagree as to the extent of the baker’s refusal to provide service. If a baker refused to design a special cake with words or images celebrating the marriage—for instance, a cake showing words with religious meaning—that might be different from a refusal to sell any cake at all.... 

The same difficulties arise in determining whether a baker has a valid free exercise claim. A baker’s refusal to attend the wedding to ensure that the cake is cut the right way, or a refusal to put certain religious words or decorations on the cake, or even a refusal to sell a cake that has been baked for the public generally but includes certain religious words or symbols on it are just three examples of  possibilities that seem all but endless.

Justice Kagan filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Breyer.  Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Alito.  Justice Thomas filed a opinion concurring in part, joined by Justice Gorsuch.

Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sotomayor, filed a dissenting opinion arguing that there was not sufficient evidence of unfair hostility by the Commission to the baker's religious beliefs.

Politico reports on the decision, as does SCOTUSblog.

6th and 7th Circuits Reject Challenge To "In God We Trust" On Currency

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision rejected claims by a group of plaintiffs-- atheists, humanists and one Jewish plaintiff-- that statutes requiring placing of the national motto, In God We Trust, on currency violates RFRA, as well as protections of free speech, free exercise and equal protection.  In Doe v. Congress of the United States, (6th Cir., May 29, 2018), the majority said in part:

Plaintiffs’ allegations indicate that at least some legislators who voted to enact the currency statutes intended to promote a Christian monotheistic message. However, intent to promote one religion is not necessarily intent to suppress another; Plaintiffs’ allegations do not show a specific governmental intent to infringe upon, restrict, or suppress other religious beliefs. Plaintiffs argue that the currency statutes nonetheless effect suppression of Atheist beliefs by requiring the Government to constantly spread speech that is akin to “Atheists Are Wrong.” But the incidental effect of suppression is permissible under the Free Exercise Clause absent restrictive intent: The laws must have been “enacted because of, not merely in spite of their suppression.”

Judge Moore, dissenting in part, contended that:

All but four of the plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded factual allegations demonstrating that the inscription substantially burdens their religion and have thus pleaded a plausible violation of RFRA....

[T]he thirty-nine plaintiffs who allege that they are required to utilize coins and cash on a regular basis have sufficiently alleged that they face an untenable choice between violating their religious beliefs or being excluded “from full participation in the economic life of the Nation,”

In Mayle v. United States, (7th Cir., May 31, 2018), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that neither the Establishment clause nor RFRA, nor the free speech clause, is violated by the printing the national motto, "In God We Trust", on currency, saying in part:

The inclusion of the motto on currency is similar to other ways in which secular symbols give a nod to the nation’s religious heritage.

In rejecting the claim of plaintiff Kenneth Mayle, an adherent of non-theistic Satanism, the court said in part:

Mayle argues that having the motto printed on currency forces him to choose between using cash, a necessary part of life, and violating his sincerely held religious beliefs. Using the currency makes him feel “guilt, shame and above all else fear,” and those feelings, he contends, qualify as a substantial burden. He likens himself to a fundamentalist Christian baker who would be forced to endorse gay marriage—a practice that violates his religious beliefs—by selling a couple a wedding cake. This term the Supreme Court is considering that baker’s case.... No matter how that case is decided, however, no reasonable person would believe that using currency has religious significance....  [B]ecause using money is not a religious exercise, and the motto has secular as well as religious significance, Mayle has not plausibly alleged that the motto’s placement on currency increases the burden on practicing Satanism.... Mayle’s feelings are not insignificant, but the burden he experiences is not substantial.