David Morris Clayman v. United States

The plaintiff’s RFRA and First Amendment claims challenging ‘In God We Trust’ on currency did not meet legal standards because using or avoiding currency was a choice, not a compulsion.

ReligiousLiberty.TV
February 26, 2026
0 min read
Cite This Case
David Morris Clayman v. United States (D. 2025).
✓ Copied! Standard law review / practitioner format. Verify against current Bluebook edition (21st ed.).

⚠ No official reporter citation found for this case. Citation quality will improve once a reporter citation (e.g. 573 U.S. 682) is added to the case record.

David Morris Clayman v. United States (U.S. District Court, 2025). https://religiousliberty.tv/case-library/clayman/
✓ Copied! For legal scholarship in social science journals. Includes URL back to this case page.

⚠ No official reporter citation found for this case. Citation quality will improve once a reporter citation (e.g. 573 U.S. 682) is added to the case record.

David Morris Clayman v. United States [U.S. District Court, 2025] — The plaintiff's RFRA and First Amendment claims challenging 'In God We Trust' on currency did not meet legal standards because using or avoiding currency was a choice, not a compulsion. Source: ReligiousLiberty.TV (https://religiousliberty.tv/case-library/clayman/, accessed April 9, 2026).
✓ Copied! For general audiences, journalism, press releases, and non-legal writing.

⚠ No official reporter citation found for this case. Citation quality will improve once a reporter citation (e.g. 573 U.S. 682) is added to the case record.

Year: 2025 Court: U.S. District Court
Holding: The plaintiff's RFRA and First Amendment claims challenging 'In God We Trust' on currency did not meet legal standards because using or avoiding currency was a choice, not a compulsion.
Uses AI to generate a structured summary. Takes ~10 seconds.

Official Documents

Coverage on ReligiousLiberty.TV

📎 Document links found in our articles: 📄 opinion

David Morris Clayman v. United States is a Free Exercise case decided by the U.S. District Court in 2025. The court held that the plaintiff's RFRA and First Amendment claims challenging 'In God We Trust' on currency did not meet legal standards because using or avoiding currency was a choice, not a compulsion.