sometime in two thousand and nine in this period bilbo contacted me he had heard that i do from religious freedom issues and she had a problem with religious freedom in terms of the you know here in the immigration oath which has so help me god at the end and she cannot feel comfortable participating in an oath that has to help me god she doesn't believe in god and so i decided to take the case i will note i would like to just raise the issue about the what i think is egregious due process violation on the part  in that ceremony these are people who come to the nation mike my client wishing to become american citizens because of the promises of the quality and then the st thing they do they're told that they're not equal as part of the oath to become a citizen entered the railroad car and they make it like it's a big deal look how wonderful we are you don't have to say it was the place you didn't have to say so help me in the race he was allowed to go in and he was forced to go into another car and she my client because of her religious beliefs beliefs being forced to actually part of the of the the action and in fact you had people in just prior saying if this happened today this would be no good we only allow it because it's been there and because we can look back to the to the origin and find that it was not about religion it was that of the constitutional standpoint in certain circumstances for instance in that circumstance when they are agreeing that this was not done for religion it was a green because this is a symbol that we used to memorialize the dead and that was  kind congress of the united states we put under god into the pledge of allegiance we making god we trust our national motto we mandate in god we trust on terri coining currency please put it in your own perspective make believe we said instead for in a case you know we  hundred fifty five and it was st on all coins and currency in one thousand nine hundred and sixty seven so it's a relatively lately occurrence and by the way when that occurred the supreme court has never heard this but this it occurred that the director of the five consecutive official mentor records reports place things like we claim to be a christian nation our national coinage should declare our trust in god in him who is king of kings and lord of lords so i think that that's quite different from plains where we say this is just a symbol for for people who die this is clearly to advocate not only for monotheism but for christianity as clear as you could make it in the official mentor rector's report and this so i think it's critical you know we keep looking back and say oh this is been here for a long time the only oath in the constitution of the take thirty four dollars of thirty six dollars had already taken an oath that was modeled on new york so that's where they took their oath which had in the presence of almighty god and so help me god the very st act of the government of the united states never mentioned in a federal case on the establishment cla how that can be i don't know specifically they took out both references to god and there is no so help me god in the oath that they created for themselves pursuant to article six which is no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the united states so what you see here is something that's completely contrary to the principles contrary to the text of the constitution and it continues on and what we do is we say to people you know this is your nd question since come to our country but go go take your oath here will do you a gre me god specifically that there was a case in which that was that issue or the protect my client to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the constitution and you can tell me it's not permitted to get rid of in god we so help me god in the oath when in fact the only oath in the constitution doesn't have it when the st act of congress w remove it and when in the statute itself that says you have to have these words it says you don't have to do it if it bothers you on the basis of religion which shows that they had religion in mind when they put this in there so i can't imagine how you think argument an even gre is all right but in greece as i say the supreme court changed they didn't say this in marshall chambers they specifically pointed out that atheists have the same opportunity to stand in front of that their board ok and to talk about no being in god not being there we don't of suddenly the atheist got power in this country you know without all the sudden make that permissible i think not and just as prior again said you know we wouldn't allow there today but somehow it's gotten and we only in the bladensburg cross case when we can look back and say that it didn't start on a purely religious basis and so i think that was changed quite strongly precedents in a number of context it's notable for example that my my friend peace very little attention to this court's decision in hanover school district which particularly combined with the court's later decision in town of greece pretty much doomed definitely dooms the bulk of his claims and over school district involved a context of schoolchildren and a state law that called for the rest of the pledge with children present they weren't it was voluntary to partition the participate in the pledge but they had to get it respectful attention we have a similar situation here your honour's where if somebody objects to a certain this critical phrase in the oath emphasized by my friend they don't have to say it they can just let others who wish to say it greece in that case of course the supreme court said look we don't need to go into the other test the lemon test the endorsement test when we have history that shows that a practice is quite permitted that's page five hundred and seventy seven of town of gr practices show that so help me god has a very strong longstanding historical prepared agree that it's within the tradition of lending gravity to to a proceeding seriousness the sort of things that justice kennedy called out for i think a useful same congress that drafted and approved the st amendment mandated it so help me god in the ose of office for federal judges state constitutions and ratification have had the words many still have them today in the supreme court has had numerous times at least in  that so help me god is definitely a permissible phrase so i think all but just the teaching of town of greece combined with this course decision in hanover dooms the establishment clause claim and i think it is i'm sorry your honor so help me god me your honor i'm i'm not sure that the court is inquired exactly how to say that this court has recognized that i believe in hanover that look at phrases like i believe it said this with respect under god in the pl you know it has some religious content the court hasn't hasn't dug dug deeper into that you know too much i think what it what it said in town of greece is even more and uses of god you hand over school district cases is a very and combined with discourse decision parker is a very very insurmountable barrier for him this does not fall into under any of the four categories of parker they just court was right about that mere exposure to to a phrase doesn't and doesn't impinge on someone's free exercise the plaintiff your does not have to say the phrase and she's been given even a further opportunity to avoid hearing the phrase so under those presidents particularly after greece again this supreme court recognized that you know in the context of this larger great gathering of adults this wasn't kind of a coercive thing i mean if people wouldn't people's leaving wouldn't wouldn't be seen as a part of people staying wouldn't be seen as exceeding to the phrase affirming it on the referral a mere honor the point to emphasize here is that this is this is really a situation where where the government has gone out of its way to accommodate the concerns of people who do not want to say this phrase it they don't have to say the phrase i guess they don't even want to hear the phrase they have an option here and so they really don't face a s are in my response would be i didn't understand the argument that way in part i think your honor because that would raise real standing questions it doesn't have the president doesn't have to say it doesn't after you hear people say that those would rate raise real standing questions i took her argument to be and i believe that this is the one that the project is she doesn't have a claim to make it so other people in her presence don't don't say i understand she wants to be in a ceremony where she doesn't have to hear it all because she finds it offensive or violative of the law so i do i do think your honor though it hasn't been brief and i didn't take my friend to be making that sort of claim that there would be a real standing issues with that kind of a claim but i do  also points out a real problem here your honor is that this is this is quite a case where the plaintiff is not being forced to say something she's not being forced to hear something and what she's trying to show what she wants to do is make it  others others who don't find the phrase objectionable and something that has a long historical present pedigree even though it may cause offense and does cause offense to some so with a long history history and tradition it is just acceptable and permitted and and understood to be consistent with the constitution in this country last couple of points here are all just hit hit the remaining claims briefly equal protection again i think hanover school district really dooms this claim in the court was was pretty punchy in there in just explaining that again with the pledge statute there it didn't require different treatment of any class of people religious or non religious based on religious beliefs it didn't get preferential treatment instead as with the regulation here it applied equally it gave everyone the equal right to participate or not to participate you could be for any reason your religion now and religion in good conscience that kind of thing so here it again  procedural due process claim the district court was was pretty sound that a pretty ready claim to reject there's just no cognizable interest in having a ceremony with an oath of one's choice in any event i think it's hard to see that claim is much different the way it was pleaded i think from the other claims so with the falling of the other claims that there's not much to left to resurrect here but i would note that in a procedural due process claim we're talking about notice an opportunity to be heard and i think it's hard to get around the fact for my friend that the plaintiff did have notice about the relevance of not attending the o c ceremony you had options and you know it was heard so i think that for multiple reasons a failed and finally your honor and again this is quite a brief one is that the remaining due process argument with respect to the reimbursement claim it just wasn't adequately pleated wasn't adequately presented it was something that was put into the prayer for relief there was a notice given of it my claims the district court clearly saw it that way when he explained in his electronic order in response to the post judgment motion i look at it i reject all your claims there's no relief for you so no reimbursement left and that's kind of where we are it's notable that my friend in his brief when he said when he's bringing up how this claim was was brought up he knows that you know it's in his care for relief and he quotes transcription if it's at the end of the hearing in this case which really goes to show this was not really something that was  pressed in this case the claim so there's you know and it's the kind of thing where my friend suggested that that the facts are somehow certain or an undisputed and you know we certainly wouldn't concede that it wouldn't be the sort of thing appropriate to consider  this stage of the case in closing your honor i would emphasize again as i started the plaintiff's quibble in this case is really with the supreme court's precedents its approach to cases raising these various kinds of claims as well as this court's preceden repeatedly confirmed that denying you generally available benefits soley on account of religious identity imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion they can be justified only by a state interest of the highest order we know there's no state interest at all  because as i said in the constitution the only oath doesn't have to help me god and the st act of congress involves removing so many god and the statute itself and their solution is go over there and you don't need to help me god so i stay home and god doesn't have to be there so the only issue here is in the generally exactly i think you're absolutely correct and that is a benefit as was made clear by the supreme court in his weissman he said this is a huge issue in for their child as he becomes an adult and graduates from high school and to tell her that she has to go anywhere or shouldn't be there is just  plessy go on for the you know you can go to huntington louisiana just going to different what's the big deal isn't that if you agree just isn't that what the whole point of the equal protection clause is about and here we doing it on the basis of religion exactly what we said we can't do one recently only reason is because we in america now say you know that what we used to do to black people is a horrific and we don't want to do that anymore but we do what we do they look at our national motto we hide as a badge of status in terms of reference is to look at the hobby lobby case look at those plaintiffs those planes are said look we don't want to support abortion in any way i don't know what makes that religion the supreme court says it doesn't matter what you think it what it does they think it it has to do with r if her religion or a witch is dead god does not exist and that's part of the and that's been throughout history people standing up for the denigration of their religion is part of a religious exercise and her religious exercise says no i'm not going to let you treat me and my fellow know what she believes is the exercise of religion is to stand up and say i count just as much as anyone else as any other religion does and she says that you don't have the right to tell me that this isn't significant this is insubstantial just like you had no right to tell  you have to go on another railroad car you don't want to have covington it's exactly the same thing she says i want this done according to you with showing me respect for my religious beliefs which is what people in every branch of every form of religion has been protesting for all the time when they're turned into nd class citizens or nd class people and she has that option and she has a right and i think that you need to rule at least give her the option this is a summary judgment sorry if you like o