God On Money: Constitutional?

The inclusion of the phrase In God We Trust on American currency has been a topic of debate for decades. While some argue that it violates the secular character of the nation and the First Amendment, others defend it as a reflection of the nation's religious heritage and tradition of religious freedom. The phrase first appeared on coins in 1864 and became the official motto of the United States in 1956, sparking widespread controversy and legal challenges. Federal courts have repeatedly upheld its constitutionality, citing its longstanding use and rejecting claims that it violates free speech and religious rights. Despite these rulings, critics argue that it endorses a particular religion and excludes those who do not believe in God or practice minority faiths. The debate surrounding In God We Trust on money highlights the ongoing tension between religious expression and the establishment of an official religion in the United States.

Explore related products

God's Not Dead: In God We Trust [DVD]

$11.99

In God We Trust

$14.8

In God We Trust - aka In God We Tru$t [Blu-ray]

$12.49

In God We Trust (PAL DVD)

$27.98

God's Not Dead: In God We Trust

$3.79

Lewis Black: In God We Rust

$19.24

The motto's constitutionality has been upheld by the 8th Circuit Court, which rejected atheists' appeals

The constitutionality of the phrase "In God We Trust" has been repeatedly upheld according to the judicial interpretation of accommodationism. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Paul, Minnesota, rejected claims by 29 atheists, children of atheists, and atheist groups. The court ruled that printing "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency is constitutional, citing its longstanding use and stating that it was not coercive. The court's decision comports with various other federal court of appeals decisions that have upheld the constitutionality of the national motto on currency and coins.

The 8th Circuit panel majority distinguished between coins and currency and license plates. They argued that license plates are displayed to the public, while people don’t publicly display money. The panel wrote that “the use or possession of U.S. money does not require a person to express, adopt, or risk association with any particular viewpoint.” The panel majority also addressed the plaintiffs’ Free Exercise Clause claim, which protects individuals’ rights to religious liberty and prohibits the government from burdening individuals’ religious beliefs. They reasoned that the inscription of the motto on currency was a neutral law of general applicability that did not burden the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs.

The inscription of the national motto “In God We Trust” on currency does not violate the Establishment Clause, amount to compelled speech, violate the Free Exercise Clause, or infringe on a person’s rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), according to the federal appeals court. The motto first appeared on American currency in 1864 during the Civil War, a period of increased religious sentiment, and was placed on all currency in 1955. Those who disagree with the motto argue that it violates the Establishment Clause, showing the government's endorsement of Christianity and monotheism, and that it coerces them into supporting Christianity.

Despite the court rulings, some individuals, including former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, argue that the use of "In God We Trust" is a form of ""ceremonial deism," where the religious context has been transformed into something merely historical and representational. In a country where a significant proportion of hate crimes are directed toward religious minorities, the government's use of the motto may make minority religious groups feel pressured to accommodate the majority. Additionally, some individuals have suggested alternative historical phrases with uniting connotations, such as 'E Pluribus Unum' (out of many, one), which is considered more inclusive and less offensive to the Constitution.

The Supreme Court's Galloway decision is seen as a major shift in jurisprudence by some

The District Court ruled in favour of the government, citing the petitioner's lack of sufficient evidence. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, determining that a directed verdict in a civil case does not deprive litigants of their right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. This decision was criticised by Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who saw it as a judicial erosion of the Seventh Amendment.

The Galloway decision is significant as it set a precedent for the interplay between jury trials and directed verdicts in civil cases. By upholding the lower court's ruling, the Supreme Court established that a directed verdict does not inherently violate the litigant's right to a jury trial. This interpretation of the Seventh Amendment marked a shift in jurisprudence, as it balanced the roles of judges and juries in civil proceedings.

While some scholars and legal professionals may view the Galloway decision as a significant change, others disagree with this characterisation. One scholar, in particular, noted that the decision "does not read like a sea change; it reads like a clarification." This perspective suggests that the decision did not introduce new principles but rather clarified and refined existing doctrines surrounding jury trials and directed verdicts.

The impact of the Galloway decision can be analysed through its influence on subsequent cases and legal interpretations. It has provided guidance on the boundaries of the Seventh Amendment and the interplay between judicial and jury roles. While it may not represent a radical departure from established jurisprudence, the decision has contributed to a deeper understanding of civil trial procedures and the protection of litigants' rights.

The motto's placement does not violate the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

The placement of the motto "In God We Trust" on currency has been the subject of debate and legal challenges, with some arguing that it violates the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). However, federal courts, including the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, have ruled that the inscription of the motto on currency does not violate these provisions.

Regarding the Establishment Clause, the courts have considered the historical context and longstanding use of the motto, dating back to 1864 during the Civil War. They have interpreted its inclusion as consistent with historical practices and not as an impermissible blending of church and state. The courts have also rejected the argument that the motto amounts to coerced participation in a religious practice, comparing it to a prayer before a town meeting, which is not considered coercive.

In relation to the Free Exercise Clause, the courts have found that the inscription of the motto on currency is a neutral law of general applicability that does not burden individuals' religious beliefs or practices. The Free Exercise Clause protects individuals' rights to religious liberty and prohibits the government from burdening those beliefs.

Additionally, the courts have ruled that the placement of the motto on currency does not infringe on individuals' rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The RFRA prohibits the government from substantially burdening individuals' religious exercise without a compelling interest.

While the courts have upheld the constitutionality of the motto, the debate continues, with some arguing that the motto endorses monotheism and Christianity over other religions and that its placement on currency amounts to coerced participation in a religious practice. Opponents of the motto also argue that it violates the secular character of the United States and predefines the type and number of gods, excluding those who do not believe in God or practice minority religions.

Explore related products

MIRACLES: In God We Trust

$20.31

In God We Trust

$12.49

In God We Trust [Region 2]

$57.29

Lewis Black: In God We Rust

$35.99

In God We Trust [Region 2]

$12.49

In God We Trust, Inc

$32.82

The national motto is considered a reference to the nation's heritage and a form of ceremonial deism

The national motto of the United States, "In God We Trust", has been a subject of debate regarding its constitutionality. The phrase first appeared on American currency in 1864 and was placed on all currency in 1955. The inscription has been challenged by atheists and minority religious groups, arguing that it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by endorsing Christianity and monotheism, and coercing participation in a religious practice.

However, federal courts have upheld the constitutionality of the motto, citing its longstanding use and lack of coercion. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the inscription does not violate the Establishment Clause, compelled speech, the Free Exercise Clause, or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The court distinguished between displaying the motto on currency, which is not publicly displayed, and license plates, which are. The court also reasoned that the inscription is a neutral law of general applicability that does not burden individuals' religious beliefs.

Opponents, however, argue that the motto violates the secular character of the nation and predefines the type and number of gods. They contend that the government's endorsement of the motto amounts to an unfair distinction between citizens based on their religious beliefs. In a country where the majority of religious believers are Christian, opponents argue that the motto unfairly represents the views of the majority over minority religious groups.

Critics argue that the motto violates the secular character of the US and predefines the type and number of gods

Critics of the motto "In God We Trust" being inscribed on American currency argue that it violates the secular character of the US and predefines the type and number of gods. They contend that this breaches the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from endorsing or advancing a particular religion, in this case, Christianity and monotheism. The critics, many of whom identify as atheists, assert that they are coerced into supporting Christianity by having to use money with this religious message.

However, federal courts, including the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, have consistently rejected these claims, citing the motto's longstanding use and its secular purpose. The courts ruled that the motto's presence on currency does not amount to impermissible coercion and is consistent with historical practices. They further reasoned that the inscription represents a neutral law of general applicability, not directly targeting religion, and that its use acknowledges the role of religion in the nation's history without endorsing a specific faith.

The debate over the motto's constitutionality has a long history, with challenges arising from various groups and individuals. Despite these objections, "In God We Trust" has been upheld as the official motto of the United States since 1956, appearing on currency and in other contexts, such as on a 1954 Liberty stamp. The Supreme Court's decision in Galloway, though controversial, has been interpreted as reinforcing the constitutionality of the motto, with Justice O'Connor stating that references to God in this context do not constitute constitutional violations.

While critics maintain their opposition to the motto on the grounds of religious neutrality and freedom, the courts' rulings suggest a balance between acknowledging the nation's religious heritage and upholding the rights of individuals with differing beliefs. The distinction made between currency and more publicly displayed items, like license plates, further highlights the complexity of this issue and the ongoing efforts to navigate the separation of church and state in American society.

Frequently asked questions