GoVERNOR GNPC ABBOTT
October 12,2015

The Honorable Ken Paxton
Attomey General of Texas
P.O. Box 12548
Austin, Texas 787 ll-2548

Re:

AG opinion request RQ-0059-KP

Dear Attorney General Paxton:

It has come to my attention that the Childress Police Departrnent recently decided to display our
'We
Trust," on its patrol vehicles. And I understand that a well-known
national motto, "In God
atheist organization, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRI) subsequently threatened the
Childress Police Department, which prompted the local members of the legislature to seek an
attomey general opinion on the permissibilþ of the display. I write to offer a few comments on
this issue and to commend you and your office for your efforts to preserve the religious liberties
of all Texans.

l.

"In God We Trust" was adopted as our official national motto in 1956, see 36 U.S.C. $
302; Pub. L. 84-851 (1956), but it traces its origins to Francis Scott Key and The StarSpangled Barurer: "And this be ow motto: 'In God is our trust!"' The motto first
appeared on U.S. coins in 1864. See S. Con. Res. 96, 109th Cong. (as passed by the
Senate, July 12,2006).

The phrase "In God We Trust" thus holds a distinguished pedigree as an official
acknowledgement of the simple fact that, in the Supreme Court's words, "[w]e ate a
religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." Zorach v. Clauson,
343 U.S. 306, 313 (1952). And as the Supreme Court has held time and again, the
Constitution commands acknowledgement and accommodation of religion, rather than
hostility towards religion; "[a]nything less would require the 'callous indifference' [that]
was never intended by the Establishment Clause." Lynchv. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668,673
(19S4) (quoting Zorach,343 U.S. at 314); see also Van Orden v. Peny, 545 U -S- 677 ,
699 (2005) (Breyer, J., concurring) (Requiring the government "to purge from the public
sphere all that in any way partakes of the religious" would "promote the kind of social
conflict the Establishment Clause seeks to avoid.").

Posr

OFFTCE

Boxl242SAusrrN,TExAs 78n757246}¡20æ (VoIcE) Dt^L7-A-l FoR RELAY SERVICES

 The Honorable Ken Paxton
October 12,2015

Page2

Given these well-established principles, it is unsurprising that'oln God S/e Trust" has
survived every legal challenge. In 1970,theNinth Circuit rejected a claim that the motto
violated the Establishment Clause, explaining that "[i]t is quite obvious that the national
motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God V/e Trust' has nothing whatsoever
to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character
and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise."
Aronow v. (Jnited States, 432 F .2d 242, 243 (gth Cir. 1970); id. at 244 (noting a
congressional report describing the motto as having "spiritual and psychological value"
and an "inspirational quality"); see also Newdow v. Lefevre,598 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2010)
(declining to ovemrle Aronow). In the ensuing years, the courts in four other circuits
(including the Fifth Circuit) have upheld the motto. The Fifth Circuit upheld statutes
requiring the placement of the motto on currency and criminalizíngthe defacement of the
motto. O'Hair v. Murray,588 F.2d 1144 (5tlì Cit. 1979) (per curiam). The Second,
Tenth and D.C. Circuits have likewise held that the display of the motto does not violate
the Establishment Clause. Newdow v. Peterson,753F.3d 105, 107-08 (2d Cir. 201$;
Kidd v. Obama,387 F. App'x 2 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (per curiam); Gaylor v. United States,
7 4 F .3d 214, 216-18 (1 Oth Cir. 1996).

Moreover, although the Supreme Court has not been required to answer the question of
the motto's constitutionality, it has provided its answer in dicta. For example, in County
of Attegheny v. ACLU,the Supreme Court explained that the motto is "consistent with the
proposition that govemment may not communicate an endorsement of religious belief."
492 U.S. 573,602-03 (19S9). And in Lynch, the Supreme Court described "the
statutorily prescribed national motto 'In God We Trust"' as a permissible 'oreference to
our religious heritage." 465 U.S. at 676. See also Van Ordenv. Perry,545 U.S. at699
(Breyer, J., concwring) (noting that the Establishment Clause permits "public references
to God on coins").
There can be no doubt that courts in Texas would uphold the constitutionality of the
Childress Police Department's decision to place "In God We Trust" on the departrnent's
patrol vehicles. If the Childress Police Department chooses to continue this patriotic
display, it will have my full support.

2.

Despite the obvious answer to the constitutional question that the FFRF raises against the
patrol-vehicle stickers, it is not surprising that the FFRF has chosen to threaten the
Childress Police Department. Misguided and malicious threats have become routine for
groups like the FFRF. In December 2011, the FFRF sent a letter threatening to sue
Henderson County, Texas, if the county refused to take down a nativity display on the
courthouse grounds. In December 2014, the American Humanist Association sent a
similar letter to the county judge in Cherokee County, Texas, demanding the removal of a
courthouse nativity display. As attorney general, I offered my support to both counties in
the event that the organizations followed through with the lawsuits. Neither organization

 The Honorable Ken Paxton
October 12,2015
Page 3

followed through with the threat. And in 2012, the FFRF threatened to sue the Kountze
Independent School District after student cheerleaders decided to put Bible verses on
banners at the football games. That threat led the district to prohibit the banners, but the
district's decision was promptly blocked by a state judge, and the cheerleaders remain
free to choose the messages displayed on the football banners.
The FFRF is similarly unsuccessful when it does resort to litigation. In 2011, the FFRF
sued Govemor Rick Perr,'seeking to enjoin Govemor Perry's organization, promotion,
and participation in aprayer rally in Houston. The federal court correctly held that the
FFRF lacked standing to bring the lawsuit, the case was dismissed, and Governor Perry
participated in the prayer rally. Also in 2011, the FFRF was unsuccessful in its attempt to
prevent President Obama from declaring a National Day of Prayer. FFRF v. Obama,64l
F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 20ll). ln 2008, the FFRF unsuccessfully sued Chief Justice John
Roberts and the Presidential Inaugural Committee seeking to enjoin the use of the phrase
"so help me God" in the presidential oath and the inclusion of a prayer during the
inaugural ceremony. See Newdow v. Roberfs, 603 F.3d 1002 (D.C. Cir. 2010). In each of
these cases, Texas fought to preserve the religious liberties attacked by the FFRF.

3. As you recently

observed in a letter to the lieutenant governor, "attacks on religious
liberty harm not only those of religious faith, but lthey] are a threat to the freedom of
conscience of all Americans." These attacks are becoming even more common. I am
gratefrrl that under your leadership, the Office of the Attomey General frghts to
vigorously defend rights that are so important to all Texans, including the right to live
and work in accordance with their moral values and religious beliefs.

Respectfully

Greg Abbott
Govemor

GA:ktd
cc:

The Honorable Charles Perry, Texas Senate
The Honorable Drew Springer, Texas House of Representatives
Chief Adrian Garcia, Chief of Police, Childress Police Department
Virginia K. Hoelscher, Chair, Opinion Committee, Office of the Texas Attomey General