Lawsuit Challenging Trump Executive Order on "Divisive Race-Centered Ideology"—and Seeking Trump's Lung—Dismissed

Plaintiff "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."

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….

Comments

[Darth Buckeye]

Ms. Jeanpierre made the mistake of filing her claim in Utah. Had she filed it in NYC or Boston, it’s possible her claim would at least have gotten to the discovery phase. I can easily imagine that a NYC jury would have found in plaintiff’s favor and ordered Trump to surrender a lung.

[santamonica811]

Mental illness is not funny. (Although the "merits" of this particular case makes it come pretty damn close to funny.) One of the downsides of being President is that you have to deal with crazy people a lot, and some of them will file frivolous lawsuits. Glad this one got dismissed as quickly as possible.*

*(Trump's lifetime of racism and racist behavior is not a criminal or civil wrong. Actual wrongs--like his decades of racial discrimination the housing he owns/owned--have already been [successfully!!!] addressed in court, and have no bearing at all on the supreme silliness of this current case.)

[Eugene Volokh]

I appreciate your point, but my read of the opinion (buttressed by reviewing his Complaint) didn't lead me to think Jeanpierre is mentally ill. My sense is that he doesn't distinguish law much from his ideology, and has little concern about whether his arguments actually fit within existing legal principles as lawyers understand them. In a sense, his arguments might seem "crazy" to you and me. But I haven't seen any evidence that he is crazy himself.

[not guilty]

"My sense is that he doesn't distinguish law much from his ideology, and has little concern about whether his arguments actually fit within existing legal principles as lawyers understand them."

Like many of the dilettantes on the comment threads here who dabble in understanding law?

I note the magistrate judge's observation that " After screening Mr. Jeanpierre’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and identifying deficiencies, the court invited Mr. Jeanpierre to file an amended complaint, noting that failure to do so could result in dismissal of this action." It appears that the plaintiff failed to file any such amended complaint -- behavior which also is characteristic of commenters here who refuse to correct their ramblings once errors are pointed out to them.

[Bob from Ohio]

[successfully!!!]

Settled. No verdict. No admission of guilt.

50+ years ago

[Rossami]

As faux religions go, that's one of the stupidest I've ever heard of. If the central relgious tenet is that you can do whatever you "feel like doing", that obviously includes doing, saying or believing prejudicial or discriminatory things.

"Vexatious litigator" designations are not handed out nearly as often as they deserve.

[Soronel Haetir]

And here I thought Shylock was ambitious.

[Davy C]

I'm guessing this person is too poor to impose sanctions? Because even someone filing pro se should know there is no basis in law for demanding a lung in this context.

[Bored Lawyer]

Wow. I must have been asleep in my Remedies class in law school when the professor covered "Surrender of Internal Organs."

[KenveeB]

So the two tenets of the religion are (1) do and believe whatever you want and (2) don't do or believe anything prejudicial or discriminatory.

Sure. Sounds right.

[not guilty]

This post called to mind my favorite civil procedure decision, United States ex rel. Gerald Mayo v. Satan and His Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pa. 1971). The operative portion of the decision states:

Plaintiff, alleging jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 241, 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prays for leave to file a complaint for violation of his civil rights in forma pauperis. He alleges that Satan has on numerous occasions caused plaintiff misery and unwarranted threats, against the will of plaintiff, that Satan has placed deliberate obstacles in his path and has caused plaintiff's downfall.

Plaintiff alleges that by reason of these acts Satan has deprived him of his constitutional rights.

We feel that the application to file and proceed in forma pauperis must be denied. Even if plaintiff's complaint reveals a prima facie recital of the infringement of the civil rights of a citizen of the United States, the Court has serious doubts that the complaint reveals a cause of action upon which relief can be granted by the court. We question whether plaintiff may obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant in this judicial district. The complaint contains no allegation of residence in this district. While the official reports disclose no case where this defendant has appeared as defendant there is an unofficial account of a trial in New Hampshire where this defendant filed an action of mortgage foreclosure as plaintiff. The defendant in that action was represented by the preeminent advocate of that day, and raised the defense that the plaintiff was a foreign prince with no standing to sue in an American Court. This defense was overcome by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Whether or not this would raise an estoppel in the present case we are unable to determine at this time.

If such action were to be allowed we would also face the question of whether it may be maintained as a class action. It appears to meet the requirements of Fed.R. of Civ.P. 23 that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, there are questions of law and fact common to the class, and the claims of the class. We cannot now determine if the representative party is typical of the claims of the class.

We note that the plaintiff has failed to include with his complaint the required form of instructions for the United States Marshal for directions as to service of process. For the foregoing reasons we must exercise our discretion to refuse the prayer of plaintiff to
proceed in forma pauperis.

So among other defects, the plaintiff failed to tell the Marshall to go to hell.