Can a Texas police department put 'In God We Trust' on its patrol cars?

Plain-English summary

State Senator Charles Perry, chairing the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, and Rural Affairs, asked the AG whether a police department or sheriff's office may put the national motto "In God We Trust" on its patrol vehicles. The question came up after the Childress Police Department decided to display the motto on its cars and was criticized for it. The legal concern was the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

The AG concluded a court would likely uphold the display. The reasoning started with the motto's pedigree: Congress made "In God We Trust" the national motto in 1956 and has long required it on U.S. coins and currency, and federal courts across the country have repeatedly rejected Establishment Clause challenges to those uses. The U.S. Supreme Court has also described the motto as a constitutional "reference to our religious heritage." No court had yet ruled on the motto specifically on a patrol vehicle, so the AG worked from how the Supreme Court analyzes religious displays generally. In recent decisions the Court has looked to the nature of the display and the nation's historical practices rather than mechanically applying the older Lemon test, upholding a Ten Commandments monument on the Texas Capitol grounds and a creche in a city's Christmas display because both were "passive" uses tied to the country's heritage.

Applying that approach, the AG described the motto on a police car as a passive use of a phrase steeped in the nation's history that does not coerce anyone into approving or joining a religious message. The opinion leaned on Town of Greece v. Galloway, where the Supreme Court upheld opening town meetings with prayer and explained that merely exposing people to a religious expression they would rather not hear is not unconstitutional coercion. The AG added that even if a court used a coercion test without weighing historical significance, the display would still likely pass, because it does not force anyone to participate in or approve the message. The bottom line: a law-enforcement agency's choice to display the national motto on its vehicles fits an unbroken history of official acknowledgment of religion's role in American life, so a court would likely find it permissible under the Establishment Clause.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2015. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. Establishment Clause doctrine in the U.S. Supreme Court has continued to develop since 2015, including how courts weigh history, tradition, and coercion, so confirm the current constitutional standard before relying on this analysis.

What the opinion meant for those who asked

Police departments and sheriff's offices (as the opinion described it): The opinion described a law-enforcement agency's display of "In God We Trust" on its patrol vehicles as a passive, ceremonial use that a court would likely find permissible under the Establishment Clause. It treated the choice to display the motto as consistent with the long history of official acknowledgment of religion's role in American life.

The senator who asked and other officials (as the opinion described it): The opinion answered the question of constitutional permissibility under the U.S. Constitution. It did not opine on any separate policy question of whether an agency should display the motto, only on whether doing so would offend the Establishment Clause.

Residents who object (as the opinion described it): The opinion described the display as one that does not coerce citizen approval or participation, drawing on the Supreme Court's reasoning that exposure to a religious expression one would rather not encounter is not, by itself, unconstitutional coercion.

Common questions

Can a police department in Texas put "In God We Trust" on its patrol cars?
The AG concluded that it can. The opinion said a court would likely find that displaying the national motto on law-enforcement patrol vehicles is permissible under the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Why doesn't displaying a religious-sounding motto violate the separation of church and state?
The AG reasoned that "In God We Trust" is the national motto, used in a patriotic and ceremonial way, and that the Supreme Court has called it a reference to the country's religious heritage. The opinion described the patrol-car display as a passive use that does not coerce anyone into religious participation or approval, which is why a court would likely uphold it.

Did any court actually rule on patrol cars specifically?
No. The AG noted that no court it was aware of had specifically addressed the motto on law-enforcement vehicles. The opinion reasoned by analogy from cases upholding the motto on currency, a county building, school posters, and a county treasurer's display, and from Supreme Court decisions on other religious displays.

Does the fact that the motto mentions God automatically make it unconstitutional?
No. The AG quoted the Supreme Court's statement that a display having "religious content" or sending a message "consistent with a religious doctrine" does not by itself run afoul of the Establishment Clause.

Background and statutory framework

Congress adopted "In God We Trust" as the national motto in 1956 (36 U.S.C. § 302) and has required the motto on the coins and printed currency of the United States (31 U.S.C. § 5112(d)(1), 5114(b)). The constitutional question arose under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause (U.S. Const. amend. I). Federal courts have consistently rejected Establishment Clause challenges to the motto's use on currency: Newdow v. Peterson, 753 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1008 (2015); Newdow v. Lefevre, 598 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2010); Kidd v. Obama, 387 Fed. App'x. 2 (D.C. Cir. 2010); Gaylor v. United States, 74 F.3d 214 (10th Cir. 1996); O'Hair v. Murray, 588 F.2d 1144 (5th Cir. 1979); and Aronow v. United States, 432 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1970). The U.S. Supreme Court has described the motto as a constitutional "reference to our religious heritage" in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), and County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989).

The AG noted that no court had addressed the motto specifically on patrol vehicles, and pointed to lower-court decisions upholding the motto in other settings: a county building facade (Lambeth v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Davidson Cnty., 407 F.3d 266 (4th Cir. 2005)), school posters (Myers v. Loudoun Cnty. Sch. Bd., 251 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (E.D. Va. 2003)), and a county treasurer's display (Schmidt v. Cline, 127 F. Supp. 2d 1169 (D. Kan. 2000)). For the governing framework, the AG relied on the Supreme Court's display cases, which look to the nature of the display and the nation's historical practices: Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) (Ten Commandments monument on the Texas Capitol grounds, declining to apply the Lemon test); Lynch, 465 U.S. at 679-86 (creche in a city's Christmas display); and Town of Greece v. Galloway, 134 S. Ct. 1811 (2014) (legislative prayer, explaining that exposing constituents to prayer they would rather not hear is not impermissible coercion). From those cases the AG concluded the patrol-car display is a passive, ceremonial use that does not coerce participation or approval and would therefore likely survive an Establishment Clause challenge.

Citations

Statutory and constitutional provisions:

• 36 U.S.C. § 302 ("In God We Trust" adopted as the national motto)
• 31 U.S.C. § 5112(d)(1) (motto required on U.S. coins)
• 31 U.S.C. § 5114(b) (motto required on U.S. currency)
• U.S. Const. amend. I (Establishment Clause)

Cases:

• Newdow v. Peterson, 753 F.3d 105, 107 (2d Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1008 (2015)
• Newdow v. Lefevre, 598 F.3d 638, 645 (9th Cir. 2010)
• Kidd v. Obama, 387 Fed. App'x. 2 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
• Gaylor v. United States, 74 F.3d 214, 217-18 (10th Cir. 1996)
• O'Hair v. Murray, 588 F.2d 1144 (5th Cir. 1979)
• Aronow v. United States, 432 F.2d 242, 244 (9th Cir. 1970)
• Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 676 (1984)
• Cnty. of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 602-03 (1989)
• Lambeth v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Davidson Cnty., 407 F.3d 266, 273 (4th Cir. 2005)
• Myers v. Loudoun Cnty. Sch. Bd., 251 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 1275 (E.D. Va. 2003)
• Schmidt v. Cline, 127 F. Supp. 2d 1169, 1181 (D. Kan. 2000)
• Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 686 (2005)
• Town of Greece v. Galloway, 134 S. Ct. 1811, 1819 (2014)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/ken-paxton/kp-0042
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2015/kp0042.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from the official PDF. Minor extraction artifacts were corrected; the linked PDF is authoritative.

KEN PAXTON
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

November 4, 2015

The Honorable Charles Perry Opinion No. KP-0042
Chair, Committee on Agriculture, Water,
and Rural Affairs Re: Whether a police department or
Texas State Senate sheriff's office may display the national
Post Office Box 12068 motto, "In God We Trust," on its patrol
Austin, Texas 78701-2068 vehicles (RQ-0059-KP)

Dear Senator Perry:

You ask whether a police department or sheriff's office may display the national motto, "In God We Trust," on its patrol vehicles. [1] You explain that the Childress Police Department has decided to display the motto on its patrol vehicles and has come under attack for this decision. Request Letter at 1. Use of the motto in various circumstances has been challenged as a violation of the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause, which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." U.S. CONST. amend. I. We therefore analyze whether the Establishment Clause prohibits the action you describe.

Congress adopted "In God We Trust" as the national motto of the United States in 1956. 36 U.S.C. § 302 (originally enacted as Act of July 30, 1956, ch. 795, 70 Stat. 732 (1956)). In addition, Congress has required use of the motto on coins and printed currency of the United States. 31 U.S.C. §§ 5112(d)(1), 5114(b). Against constitutional challenges to these statutes, courts across the country have consistently held that the statutes do not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Newdow v. Peterson, 753 F.3d 105, 107 (2d Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1008 (2015); Newdow v. Lefevre, 598 F.3d 638, 645 (9th Cir. 2010); Kidd v. Obama, 387 Fed. App'x. 2 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (per curiam); Gaylor v. United States, 74 F.3d 214, 217-18 (10th Cir. 1996); O'Hair v. Murray, 588 F.2d 1144, 1144 (5th Cir. 1979) (per curiam); Aronow v. United States, 432 F.2d 242, 244 (9th Cir. 1970). Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has on multiple occasions noted that the motto is a constitutional "reference to our religious heritage." Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 676 (1984); see also Cnty. of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 602-03 (1989).

Although a number of courts have addressed the motto in other contexts, no court of which we are aware has specifically addressed the display of the motto on law enforcement patrol vehicles. See Lambeth v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Davidson Cnty., 407 F.3d 266, 273 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that inscription of the national motto on a county building facade did not violate the Establishment Clause); Myers v. Loudoun Cnty. Sch. Bd., 251 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 1275 (E.D. Va. 2003) (holding that a school's display of posters with the national motto did not violate the Establishment Clause); Schmidt v. Cline, 127 F. Supp. 2d 1169, 1181 (D. Kan. 2000) (concluding the same for a display by a county treasurer). In recent decisions considering other types of religious displays challenged under the Establishment Clause, the Supreme Court has explained that its analysis is driven by the nature of the display in question and by reference to our nation's historical practices and understandings. See Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 686 (2005) (declining to apply the Lemon test); Lynch, 465 U.S. at 679-80, 685-86; see also Town of Greece v. Galloway, 134 S. Ct. 1811, 1819 (2014). In upholding the placement of the Ten Commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds, the Court emphasized the "passive use" of the text in the monument and "the role the Decalogue plays in America's heritage." Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 689, 690-91. And in upholding the use of a creche in a municipality's Christmas display, the Court underscored the "passive" nature of the creche and "the historical origins of this traditional event long recognized as a National Holiday." Lynch, 465 U.S. at 680, 685-86.

Similarly, displaying "In God We Trust" on police vehicles is a passive use of a motto steeped in our nation's history that does not coerce citizen approval or participation. [2] The Supreme Court recently upheld the right of a municipality to open its town meetings with prayer, and in doing so, Justice Kennedy explained that "legislative bodies do not engage in impermissible coercion merely by exposing constituents to prayer that they would rather not hear and in which they need not participate." Galloway, 134 S. Ct. at 1827. A police department's display of the motto likewise does not suggest "that those who disagree are compelled to join the expression or approve its content." Id. at 1825.

Courts upholding the display of the motto in other contexts have emphasized that "[i]ts use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character." Aronow, 432 F.2d at 243. "The motto symbolizes the historical role of religion in our society, . . . fosters patriotism, and expresses confidence in the future." Gaylor, 74 F.3d at 216. The fact that a display has "religious content" or promotes "a message consistent with a religious doctrine" does not by itself "run afoul of the Establishment Clause." Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 690. "There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789." Lynch, 465 U.S. at 674. A law enforcement department's decision to display the national motto on its vehicles is consistent with that history. Thus, a court is likely to conclude that a law enforcement department's display of "In God We Trust" on its patrol vehicles is permissible under the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

SUMMARY

A court is likely to conclude that a law enforcement department's display of the national motto, "In God We Trust," on its patrol vehicles is permissible under the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.

Very truly yours,

KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas

CHARLES E. ROY
First Assistant Attorney General

BRANTLEY STARR
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel

VIRGINIA K. HOELSCHER
Chair, Opinion Committee

[1] Letter from Honorable Charles Perry, Chair, Senate Comm. on Agric., Water, & Rural Affairs, to Honorable Ken Paxton, Tex. Att'y Gen. at 1 (Oct. 5, 2015), http://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinion/requests-for-opinion-rqs ("Request Letter").

[2] If the Supreme Court instead analyzed this question under a coercion test that did not assess historical significance, a court will still likely find that the display of the national motto on law enforcement vehicles is constitutional, as it does not coerce individuals into participation or approval of the message. See Galloway, 134 S. Ct. at 1825 (Kennedy, J.) (concluding that a prayer at a town meeting did not involve coercion); see also id. at 1838 (Thomas, J., concurring) ("to the extent coercion is relevant to the Establishment Clause analysis, it is actual legal coercion that counts -- not the subtle coercive pressures allegedly felt by respondents in this case").