Litigation Update

In the Supreme Court of the United States on March 6, 2006, a decision was rendered that said law schools that receive federal funds cannot bar military recruiters from being on campus.  This is an important victory for the military and ultimately for our national security.  At a time when our military is trying to attract the best and the brightest of our young people, it makes no sense to bar recruiters from college campuses especially when federal funds are used to support these schools.  Students who are considering serving our nation in the military should not be treated like second-class citizens.  The unanimous decision by the Supreme Court ensures that the armed forces have an equal opportunity to recruit our nations best and brightest students without placing military recruiters at a distinct disadvantage.

In federal court in Sacramento, California, on March 27, 2006, we filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of 47 members of Congress in support of the federal governments request to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of our national motto, In God We Trust.  The lawsuit was filed last November by California atheist Michael Newdow.  In God We Trust appears on U.S. currency and has been the official U.S. motto since 1956.  We argue that the legal challenge to the national motto can have other ramifications as well:  A decision in this case invalidating the motto would render constitutionally suspect a number of practices that traditionally have been considered an important part of American society.  Nothing in the Supreme Courts Establishment Clause jurisprudence requires the relentless extirpation of public references to God that Plaintiff demands.  Whether it be in the national motto, the Pledge of Allegiance, patriotic music, or the nations founding documents, such references are wholly consistent with the First Amendment.

Our brief concluded by urging the court to dismiss the suit:  The Establishment Clause was never intended as a guarantee that a person will not be exposed to religion or religious symbols on public property, and the Supreme Court has rejected previous attempts to eradicate all symbols of this countrys religious heritage from the publics view.  Although enterprising plaintiffs can find support for just about any proposition in the Courts multifarious Establishment Clause pronouncements, a claim that the national motto violates the First Amendment borders on frivolous.

We represented ourselves and 47 members of Congress.  The list includes:  U.S. Senator Jim DeMint and U.S. Representatives Robert B. Aderholt, W. Todd Akin, Roscoe G. Bartlett, Kevin Brady, John Campbell, Steve Chabot, Chris Chocola, K. Michael Conaway, Geoff Davis, Jo Ann Davis, Phil English, Tom Feeney, Virginia Foxx, Trent Franks, Scott Garrett, Phil Gingrey, Virgil H. Goode, Jr., Gil Gutknecht, J.D. Hayworth, Jeb Hensarling, Wally Herger, Bob Inglis, Ernest J. Istook, Jr., Bobby Jindal, Sam Johnson, Michael T. McCaul, Patrick T. McHenry, Sue Wilkins Myrick, Randy Neugebauer, Charlie Norwood, Mike Pence, Charles W. Chip Pickering, Todd Russell Platts, Dana Rohrabacher, Paul Ryan, Jim Ryun, John B. Shadegg, Michael E. Sodrel, Mark E. Souder, Thomas G. Tancredo, Lee Terry, Todd Tiahrt, Zach Wamp, Dave Weldon, Lynn A. Westmoreland, and Roger F. Wicker.  All are members of the 109th Congress and support the Defendants motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

We believe the court should dismiss this lawsuit which has no basis in fact and represents another flawed attempt to use the legal system to remove a legitimate reference to the religious heritage of our nation.  The nations history is replete with examples of acknowledgment of religious belief in the public sector, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly referenced the national motto as a legitimate expression of our religious heritage.  Its clear that the national motto is not only permissible, but constitutional as well, and were hopeful that the federal district court will dismiss this frivolous lawsuit.