This week, HWG LLP attorney Courtney Miller defended an amicus brief before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the American Humanist Association and Interfaith Alliance Foundation. The case, McCutchan v. Nicholson, involves the Constitutional definition of religion.
The Center for Inquiry (CFI), a group that promotes Secular Humanism, filed a federal lawsuit in Texas, challenging a statute that allows clergy or other similar officials of religious organizations—but not celebrants of other organizations—to solemnize marriages in the state. Though ultimately dismissing the case for lack of standing, the district court concluded that only theistic religions are encompassed by the First Amendment, and that, because Secular Humanism is not theistic, CFI is not a religious organization.
Decades ago, however, the U.S. Supreme Court expressly rejected the idea that nontheistic religions are outside of the scope of the Religion Clause and recognized Secular Humanism as a nontheistic religion. A few years later, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a functional definition of religion that centers on the role the belief system plays in the life of the adherent. Under this definition, at least some forms of Humanism are constitutionally protected religions.
The district court’s conclusion in McCutchan v. Nicholson contradicts this precedent and would divest many commonly recognized religions—like Buddhism, Unitarian Universalism, Jainism, and branches of Hinduism and Judaism—from the Religion Clause. Ensuring that all religions receive equal treatment under the law—regardless of their position on the existence of God or the source of their beliefs—is critical for protecting all citizens, both in the free exercise of their own religion and against the establishment of other religions.
Our position is that the Fifth Circuit does not need to decide whether CFI is a religious organization to resolve the case, but that it should clarify that nontheistic religions are within the scope of the Religion Clause.
“This case is much bigger than the question of who can solemnize marriages,” said Courtney. “The Fifth Circuit’s opinion could have huge ramifications for millions of Americans who deserve the same protection under the First Amendment as everyone else.”