On Monday, June 10, the court rejected without comment the challenge from activist Michael Newdow, who claimed that the inscription “In God We Trust” on currency was a government endorsement of religion and a violation of the First Amendment, Fox News reports.

In his petition to the Supreme Court, Newdow argued that because his clients are all atheist individuals or atheist groups, the government violated their “sincere religious belief” that there is no God and turned them into “political outsiders” by placing the phrase “In God We Trust” on their money.

Newdow’s petition, which refers to “God” as “G-d,” also argued that the placement of “In God We Trust” on the money “has real effects on real children” and compared the plight of atheist children to the struggles historically faced by black children.

Newdow has in the past failed in several litigation challenges against the “under God” phrase in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.

Last year, he faced a loss in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the suit. At the time, judges found that the motto on currency “comports with early understandings of the Establishment Clause” and did not coerce people into practicing a religion.

In 2004, after suing for the removal of “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, his case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court did not decide on the merits of the case but instead said Newdow had no standing to sue.

And in 2013, he partnered with the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation to sue the U.S. Treasury over the motto on currency.

The California-based activist has also been the face of other atheist campaigns, including attempts to stop prayers being read at the inauguration of Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush.

He also attempted to prevent government leaders from saying the phrase “So help me God” in the 2009, 2013, and 2017 presidential inaugurations.

The above comes from a June 12 story on the Christian Post.