Perrier-Bilbo v. United States

Decision Date03 April 2020
Docket NumberNo. 18-2085,18-2085
Citation954 F.3d 413
Parties Olga Paule PERRIER-BILBO, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES; L. Francis Cissna, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendants, Appellees, Congress of the United States, Defendant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Michael A. Newdow, Sacramento, CA, for appellant.

Scott G. Stewart, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, with whom Francesca Genova, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Matthew J. Glover, Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, William C. Peachey, Director, Erez Reuveni, Assistant Director, were on brief, for appellees.

Before Torruella, Thompson, and Barron, Circuit Judges.

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant Olga Paule Perrier-Bilbo ("Perrier-Bilbo") appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the United States and Francis Cissna, the Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") (collectively, the "Government"), on her claims that the inclusion of the phrase "so help me God" at the end of the oath of allegiance administered at United States naturalization ceremonies violates the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb – 2000bb-4 ("RFRA"), and the Fifth Amendment equal protection and procedural due process protections. In addition, Perrier-Bilbo also appeals the district court's order denying her post-judgment motion asserting a due process violation arising from the USCIS Boston Field Office director's conduct in handling and then denying her first naturalization application. She requests that we declare the federal regulation prescribing the oath's language unconstitutional, that we enjoin USCIS and lower courts from using the phrase "so help me God" during the naturalization ceremony for which she is scheduled, and that we order USCIS to reimburse the $680 she paid for her second naturalization application. Because we find that the inclusion of "so help me God" as a means of completing the naturalization oath does not violate the First or Fifth Amendments or RFRA, and because the post-judgment due process claim was not properly presented below, we affirm.

I. Background
A. Factual Background

Perrier-Bilbo is a French citizen who moved to Scituate, Massachusetts in 2000. In 2002, she became a United States permanent resident and subsequently received a green card in 2004. In 2008, Perrier-Bilbo decided to become a United States citizen, so she submitted an application for naturalization to USCIS. After attending an interview with USCIS and passing her English language and civics tests, USCIS granted her application. Perrier-Bilbo then received a form notifying her that she would take the oath of allegiance to the United States on March 4, 2009. This was her last mandatory step towards admission to citizenship. See 8 U.S.C. § 1448(a) ; 8 C.F.R. § 337.1(a). The Department of Homeland Security nationality regulations provide the language of the oath, which concludes: "I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God." 8 C.F.R. § 337.1(a) (emphasis added).

Perrier-Bilbo's "sincere religious belief system includes the denial that there exists any ‘God.’ " Therefore, in January 2009, she wrote to USCIS requesting that the oath be administered without the phrase "so help me God." USCIS informed Perrier-Bilbo in April 2009 that she could either "participate in the oath ceremony and omit the ‘so help me God’ language, or schedule a private oath ceremony where the government would not use that phrase."1 Months later, in August 2009, USCIS sent Perrier-Bilbo a letter giving her "15 days in which to notify USCIS which of the options provided to [her was] acceptable" and warning her that if she failed to respond or "decline[d] to specify one of the options," USCIS would reopen her case and "deny [her] application for naturalization for lack of prosecution."

That same month, Perrier-Bilbo's lawyer sent a letter to the director of the USCIS Boston Field Office, Karen Haydon ("Director Haydon"), to alert her that Perrier-Bilbo had retained him as counsel and "that neither of the two options provided w[ould] satisfactorily resolve the problem." He proposed that the solution was "merely that the religious verbiage be removed from the oath, as the First Amendment mandates." Subsequently, Perrier-Bilbo's attorney twice attempted to obtain an update on Perrier-Bilbo's request. In May 2010, Director Haydon acknowledged the correspondence, but pointed out that Perrier-Bilbo's lawyer had not submitted a notice of appearance form and consequently, because he was not authorized to respond on Perrier-Bilbo's behalf, the response letter he had sent "d[id] not constitute a response to the USCIS's notice of its intent to reopen" Perrier-Bilbo's application for naturalization. USCIS therefore denied the application as abandoned but noted that Perrier-Bilbo could file a new application at any time.

After filing at least two notices of appearance and unsuccessfully attempting to obtain a waiver of the application fee, Perrier-Bilbo filed a second application for naturalization and paid the corresponding $680 in fees in December 2014. USCIS granted the application in August 2015. Perrier-Bilbo's naturalization ceremony was ultimately scheduled for April 2017 at the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On the day of the ceremony, Perrier-Bilbo tried to explain her objection to the oath. When informed that she "d[id not] have to say anything," she replied, "[i]f I participate, I feel I am violating the Constitution I am supposed to support and defend." Perrier-Bilbo was told she would not be sworn in that day and that she should speak with USCIS directly. That same day, both Perrier-Bilbo and her lawyer spoke with an individual at the Boston USCIS office.

In August 2017, USCIS sent a letter to Perrier-Bilbo informing her that she was scheduled to participate in the upcoming September 2017 naturalization ceremony. The letter also acknowledged her request to "take an oath of allegiance modified for religious or conscientious objections" and reiterated that the two accommodations previously proposed were still available to her, but that the district court administering the oath "w[ould] not modify the oath of allegiance for the applicants who ha[d] not requested such a modification." Perrier-Bilbo did not go to the September 2017 naturalization ceremony.

B. Procedural History

On November 2, 2017, Perrier-Bilbo filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Government.2 The complaint alleged that the inclusion of the phrase "so help me God" in the naturalization oath as set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 337.1 violated (1) the Establishment Clause; (2) the Free Exercise Clause; (3) the RFRA; (4) the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause; and (5) procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Specifically, Perrier-Bilbo, who describes herself as "an Atheist who specifically denies the existence of any ‘God,’ " claimed that by adding "so help me God" to the end of the oath, the United States "[was] asserting that God exists." According to her, although the regulations allow for the oath to be altered, she would still be violating her oath to "support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America" because those laws do not permit the government to make her an "outsider" because of her religious beliefs or force her to use an alternative oath. The complaint sought a declaration that keeping the phrase "so help me God" in the naturalization oath violated the above-mentioned constitutional provisions and statute. It also requested the district court to permanently enjoin the Government "from placing ‘so help me God’ in future naturalization oath ceremonies" and to order the Government to reimburse Perrier-Bilbo for the cost of her second naturalization application fees.

On February 22, 2018, the Government filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The district court heard oral argument on the motion on May 8, 2018. During the hearing, the court obtained the parties' consent to convert the motion to dismiss into cross-motions for summary judgment, as it appeared to the court that it "ha[d] the necessary facts" and "nothing[ was] in dispute." On September 28, 2018, the district court issued a memorandum and order granting summary judgment for the Government. Perrier-Bilbo v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 3d 211 (D. Mass. 2018). First, the district court, while recognizing that the phrase "so help me God" had "some religious content," id. at 221, rejected Perrier-Bilbo's Establishment Clause claim, finding that "the use of the phrase ... or similar invocations in public oaths and statements is, along with legislative prayer, a well-established tradition that can be traced back to the nation's founding," id. at 219. Moreover, the court noted that the Supreme Court has upheld "more sectarian" "religious invocations" than the phrase at issue here, id., and that the accommodations offered to Perrier-Bilbo were "permissible, non-coercive alternatives," id. at 220. In addition, it highlighted the "overwhelmingly consistent precedent and dicta" upholding the constitutionality of similar practices. Id.

The district court then turned to the Free Exercise Clause challenge. Relying on Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Hanover School District, 626 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010),3 the court found that "mere exposure" to the phrase "so help me God" would not have a coercive effect on, or compel, Perrier-Bilbo to affirm a religious belief s...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 20-35222
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 19 Julio 2021
    ... ... Bremerton School District, Defendant-Appellee. No. 20-35222 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit July 19, 2021 ... DC ... No ... Jackson County, 986 F.3d 979, 981 (7th ... Cir. 2021); Perrier-Bilbo v. United States, 954 F.3d ... 413, 425 (1st Cir. 2020); Kondrat'yev v. City of ... ...
  • Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 19 Julio 2021
    ...’s demise and wisely left it dead. See, e.g. , Woodring v. Jackson County , 986 F.3d 979, 981 (7th Cir. 2021) ; Perrier-Bilbo v. United States , 954 F.3d 413, 425 (1st Cir. 2020) ; Kondrat'yev v. City of Pensacola , 949 F.3d 1319, 1321 (11th Cir. 2020) ; Freedom From Religion Found., Inc. v......
  • Woodring v. Jackson Cnty., 20-1881
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 2 Febrero 2021
    ...v. Cnty. of Lehigh , 933 F.3d 275, 281 (3d Cir. 2019) (quoting Am. Legion , 139 S. Ct. at 2081 n.16 ); accord Perrier-Bilbo v. United States , 954 F.3d 413, 424 (1st Cir. 2020) (holding that American Legion "explicitly rejected" Lemon in this context); Kondrat'yev v. City of Pensacola , 949......
  • United States v. Voris
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 7 Julio 2020
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT