A Florida federal court has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a self-represented plaintiff who challenged the presence of “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency, arguing it violated his religious beliefs and excluded him from full civic participation.
David Morris Clayman, who identifies as a religious Jew, filed suit against multiple federal officials. His core claim was that the motto on U.S. coins and bills forced him to come into contact with what he viewed as a sacred name, thereby desecrating it. According to Clayman, his religious convictions prevent him from handling, carrying, or destroying currency bearing that phrase. The result, he argued, was that he could not use public bathrooms, donate money, receive wedding gifts, or even enter cash-only spaces without compromising his faith.
Judge William Matthewman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the case on November 21, 2025. In a detailed order, the court found that Clayman’s claims did not meet the legal standards required under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the First Amendment, or the Takings Clause. While the court allowed Clayman a final opportunity to amend his complaint, it made clear that any further filing must comply with both federal rules and established case law.
The heart of Clayman’s case rested on RFRA. But RFRA is not a shield for subjective discomfort. It protects against actual, substantial burdens imposed by government policy. In Clayman’s case, the court concluded that using or avoiding currency was a choice, not a compulsion. People can conduct nearly all transactions today digitally, and Clayman provided no evidence that the government forced him to use cash.
And here’s where the court’s reasoning shifts from clinical to surgical. Clayman was not facing fines, detention, or exclusion from government services. He was describing inconveniences, not impositions. Saying the motto on money forced him out of society was, to the court, like saying traffic lights violate your faith because red is spiritually alarming. The court said RFRA was not built to resolve matters of personal theology.
In trying to elevate his claim, Clayman presented dozens of real-world burdens. He argued that he had to donate over $2,000 in wedding gifts rather than use the cash. He cited problems tipping, attending events, and navigating toll roads. The judge addressed these individually and collectively, concluding that none of them added up to a legal injury. Most were speculative, avoidable, or voluntarily accepted.
He also argued that the government was endorsing monotheism by requiring the motto on money, in violation of the Establishment Clause. But the court was not buying that ticket. It rejected Clayman’s reliance on the outdated Lemon v. Kurtzman framework and instead followed the current rule: historical practice matters more than theoretical offense. The motto has appeared on U.S. currency since the 1800s. Courts have consistently held it to be ceremonial.
Clayman claimed that even if no one else shared his beliefs, the fact that he alone bore the burden was enough. The court responded that the Establishment Clause prohibits state sponsorship of religion — it does not prohibit tradition. You can’t walk into federal court with a theological disagreement and walk out with an order to redesign the entire national currency.
In what might be described as the lawsuit’s moonshot moment, Clayman also attempted to expand his claims by naming former President Donald Trump as a defendant. He cited recent executive orders relating to cash bail reform. The court rejected that move outright, citing issues of presidential immunity, lack of standing, and irrelevance to the claims about the motto.
The court noted that even if one entertained the redesign ideas floated by Clayman — including removing the motto entirely, replacing it with secular alternatives, or printing money on full-color plastic — those were not legal remedies the judiciary could grant. They were policy arguments dressed as pleadings.
The ruling didn’t end the matter entirely. The judge dismissed the First Amended Complaint without prejudice and gave Clayman until December 5, 2025, to file a final version. But the court was clear. This next version must fix the defects identified. If not, the case will likely be dismissed permanently.
This ruling reinforces what courts have made clear across multiple circuits: the phrase “In God We Trust” is not a theological directive, and its presence on currency does not transform cash into a religious object. RFRA claims must show that the government has imposed a direct and substantial burden on religious exercise. That bar was not cleared here.
The judge also applied current Establishment Clause precedent. After the Supreme Court moved away from symbolic tests and toward historical practice, courts have leaned on tradition as the primary guide. The motto’s long history on coins and currency, combined with its non-doctrinal function, makes it very difficult to challenge.
Clayman’s individual beliefs may be sincere, but sincerity is not a substitute for standing. Courts do not issue rulings based on uniqueness. The law asks whether a government policy coerces someone into violating their faith. The court found no such coercion. If currency can be avoided and alternatives exist, the burden is not substantial under federal law.
As for the proposed amendments, the court was cautious but firm. Adding the President and expanding into bail reform only diluted the core claim. Courts do not have the authority to reshape federal financial policy or evaluate political executive orders unrelated to the legal issues raised. The final chance to amend is not a reset button. It is the last page in the docket.
Case Caption and Decision Date
Clayman v. Bessent, et al., Case No. 25-cv-80890 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2025)
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.693513/gov.uscourts.flsd.693513.71.0_1.pdf
TLDR (Too Long / Didn’t Read Summary)
On November 21, 2025, a Florida federal court dismissed a lawsuit by David Morris Clayman challenging the use of “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency. Clayman claimed the motto violated his Jewish beliefs and excluded him from full participation in economic life. The court ruled that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and First Amendment did not support his claims. It found that the burdens described were speculative or optional. The court gave Clayman until December 5, 2025, to submit one last version of his complaint.
Support ReligiousLiberty.TV
If you want to stay informed on developments in religious liberty law, subscribe to ReligiousLiberty.TV. Get access to breaking news, case filings, and expert analysis of First Amendment litigation and policy. No ads, no clutter — just serious reporting for serious readers.
AI Disclaimer
This article was created with the assistance of AI and does not constitute legal advice. For legal questions, consult a licensed attorney.
Tags
RFRA, In God We Trust, Establishment Clause, First Amendment lawsuits, religious liberty litigation
Source: ReligiousLibertyTV on Substack
