Judge Rejects Lawsuit to Remove "In God We Trust" from Money

By Linda Orlando

A federal judge in Sacramento rejected a lawsuit Monday from Michael Newdow, an atheist who thinks the U.S. government should remove the phrase "In God We Trust" that appears on coins and dollar bills. He says that the mention of God on money violates his First Amendment rights. Newdow, a doctor and lawyer, sued Congress and several federal officials, saying that the government was establishing a religion by making money with "In God We Trust" written on it. According to his 162-page lawsuit, filed last November, the money violates the First Amendment clause requiring separation of church and state.

Two years ago Newdow first came to media prominence when he began his campaign to have the Pledge of Allegiance banned from public schools because the lyrics contain the words "under God." His suit eventually reached the Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case because they said Newdow didn’t have custody of his daughter, on whose behalf he filed the lawsuit. So Newdow went back to the drawing table, rounded up parents of three other children in Sacramento-area school districts, and filed the lawsuit again, on their behalf.

A Sacramento judge actually sided with Newdow last September, and now that case is pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most liberal courts in the land. While awaiting the outcome of that case, Newdow embarked on this other assault against America. He filed his lawsuit against "In God We Trust" just five days after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected, without comment, a challenge to the inscription of "In God We Trust" on a county government building in North Carolina.

U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. said in his ruling Monday that the words minted on American money are equivalent to a secular national slogan that does not interfere with Michael Newdow’s religious views. "There is no proper allegation that the government compelled plaintiff to affirm a repugnant belief in monotheism," Damrell said in dismissing the suit. Newdow was not disappointed to hear of the judge’s dismissal, because he says it will give him an edge in his appeal. Damrell, however, said that a 9th Circuit ruling from 1970 decided the phrase is a national motto that has "nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion," and he feels that the court will not reverse that ruling. But Newdow argued that the appeals court’s decision was wrongly decided. "Wrongly decided or not, this court must and does…follow 9th Circuit precedent," Damrell said.

"The placement of ‘In God We Trust’ on the coins and currency was clearly done for religious purposes and to have religious effects," Newdow’s lawsuit claims. The phrase, Newdow says, "excludes people who don’t believe in God." Obviously Newdow is one "excluded" person who doesn’t mind spending his religious money filing frivolous lawsuits that just waste the court’s time. If he doesn’t get anywhere with this lawsuit perhaps he’ll feel like moving to a country where he won't have money with the word "God" on it. But he also won't have the right to challenge it.