Lawsuit Challenging Trump Executive Order on “Divisive Race-Centered Ideology”—and Seeking Trump’s Lung—Dismissed

From Jeanpierre v. Trump, decided Tuesday by Magistrate Judge Daphne Oberg (D. Utah):

Mr. Jeanpierre is the founder of a religious organization called the Black Flag….He claims President Trump’s Executive Order 14253 violates his religious freedoms under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA),as well as Article 18 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Black Flag is a tax-exempt religious organization with various tenets. The central tenet: Mr. Jeanpierre can do whatever he “feel[s] like doing.” A “Principle of Autonomy” grants him “autonomy of mind, body, spirit, emotion, and execution of will regardless of opinion of any and all other individual(s), entity, or entities.” The Black Flag prohibits prejudice and discrimination “against any member, guest, or affiliated party based on race, color, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, age, disability, or socioeconomic status.” The religion “mandates recognition of systemic racism, inequity, and historical injustice,” imposes “a religious duty to actively engage in dismantling systems of oppression,” and requires “active engagement in outreach programs and protective measures” for marginalized or vulnerable groups.

On March 27, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14253, titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.” As characterized in the complaint, the executive order “directs federal agencies to remove … ‘divisive race-centered ideology’ from the Smithsonian Institution and to restore monuments that have been ‘removed or changed to perpetuate a false reconstruction of American history.'” The order refers to a historical revisionist movement which “seeks to undermine the remarkable achievements of the United States by casting its founding principles and historical milestones in a negative light.”

Mr. Jeanpierre claims the order “opposes narratives that present American history as ‘inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed.'” It “prohibits ‘exhibits or programs that degrade shared American values, divide Americans by race, or promote ideologies inconsistent with Federal law,’ and targets changes made to historical presentations since January 1, 2020.” And it “directs the Department of the Interior to ensure that monuments and memorials do not contain content that ‘inappropriately disparage Americans past or living (including persons living in colonial times).'”

According to Mr. Jeanpierre, this executive order “effectively establishes a state-sponsored religious doctrine of American historical exceptionalism” and, as a result, is “a direct attack on the foundational tenets of [his] sincerely held religious beliefs.” He alleges the order prevents Mr. Jeanpierre “from exercising his religious autonomy to perceive and interpret history according to his religious conscience.” He alleges the order’s “prohibition against depicting American history as ‘inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed'” impedes his “religious mandate to identify and confront … historical realities” and interferes with his “religious practice of acknowledging and addressing systemic racism” by “imposing a sanitized historical narrative that contradicts [his] religious understanding of reality.”

The “restrictions on historical presentations,” according to Mr. Jeanpierre, force “compliance with a historical narrative that [he] religiously believes causes harm to marginalized communities” and “spiritual suffocation and respiratory distress to [his] religion by restricting the free breath of historical truth.” Finally, Mr. Jeanpierre alleges the executive order’s imposed historical doctrine compels him “to violate his religious tenants regarding autonomy, truth-telling, and confrontation of systemic inequity,” forcing him “to choose between adherence to his religious principles and compliance with federal law.”

Mr. Jeanpierre seeks injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief, as well as “specific performance.” In particular, he requests an order permanently enjoining Executive Order 14253 and declaring it violative of the First Amendment and RFRA—and a finding that it constitutes religious violence under international law. He requests $666 in “compensatory damages” and “attorney’s fees and costs.” And he seeks an order requiring President Trump “to surrender one (1) lung” to him as specific performance “for the spiritual suffocation caused by the Executive Order”—or, in the alternative, a specifically orchestrated apology delivered by President Trump before international news media….

The Magistrate Judge was required to screen the complaint for legal sufficiency, since Jeanpierre sought to bring the claim without paying the filing fee. And she concluded the complaint “fails to state a plausible claim for relief” for various reasons, including:

Mr. Jeanpierre fails to assert facts showing the executive order substantially burdens his exercise of religion. He alleges the order “imposes a sanitized historical narrative” that prohibits “depicting American history as ‘inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed.'” And he broadly alleges this prevents him “from exercising his religious autonomy to perceive and interpret history,” impedes his religious practice of identifying and confronting “historical realities” and “acknowledging and addressing systemic racism,” forces him to comply with an incorrect historical narrative, compels him “to violate his religious tenants regarding autonomy, truth-telling, and confrontation of systemic inequity,” and forces him “to choose between adherence to his religious principles and compliance with federal law.”

But the executive order, as described in the complaint, does not demand any conduct from Mr. Jeanpierre or impose any consequence for his religious beliefs. It orders federal agencies to remove race-centered ideology from the Smithsonian Institution and to restore public monuments, according to President Trump’s historical narrative that the country’s achievements, principles, and milestones are being undermined and cast in a negative light. Mr. Jeanpierre does not assert he was made to alter his religious behavior in some way because of this order. He does not even allege he visited the Smithsonian or any other monument affected by the order. And, even if he has, the order demands nothing from him. It includes no provision requiring or coercing him to accept the executive order’s narrative as truth. Mr. Jeanpierre is free to disagree without any consequence. Accordingly, the complaint fails to state a claim under RFRA.

Third, Mr. Jeanpierre also fails to state a claim that the executive order violates his religious freedoms under the First Amendment. Among other things, the First Amendment contains an Establishment Clause and a Free Exercise Clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ….” Mr. Jeanpierre does not state a claim under either clause.

The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from “mak[ing] a religious observance compulsory,” “coerc[ing] anyone to attend church,” or forcing individuals “to engage in a formal religious exercise.” The executive order does none of that—it is entirely secular. Mr. Jeanpierre does not allege he has been forced to attend or engage in any religious observance—or even that he has been forced to visit the Smithsonian or any other monument affected by the order.

The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from burdening “sincere religious practice pursuant to a policy that is not neutral or generally applicable.” But Mr. Jeanpierre does not allege the executive order burdens his religious practice—that it prevents him from holding his own beliefs or compels him to alter his personal religious behavior. Moreover, the executive order is neutral and generally applicable. It has no religious objectives. It does not target religion. On its face, it has nothing to do with religion. In effect, Mr. Jeanpierre’s free-exercise claim demands that President Trump refrain from implementing a religiously neutral, historical narrative at the Smithsonian and other monuments that is contrary to the Black Flag’s religious understanding of history. The First Amendment has never been interpreted to “require the Government itself to behave in ways that the individual believes will further his or her spiritual development.” For these reasons, the complaint fails to state a claim under either the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause.

Finally, Mr. Jeanpierre fails to state a claim that the executive order violates Article 18 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a non-binding declaration that provides no private rights of action….