Download PDF

On October 14th, a Nebraska judge threw out a state legislator’s lawsuit against God because the defendant was not properly served notice of the charges. The judge cited the impossibility of serving a defendant who lacks a listed home address.

Ernie Chambers, a state legislator of thirty-eight years and a law school graduate, filed a lawsuit against God in September 2007, seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the Almighty from committing acts of violence such as floods, earthquakes and tornadoes—also known as “acts of God.” He claims that God has made “terrorist” threats against him and his Omaha constituents and caused “widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of Earth’s inhabitants,” which are chronicled in written form. According to Chambers, such chronicles exist for the purpose of invoking fear in order to “coerce obedience” to His will.

Douglas County District Court Judge Marlon Polk ruled that under Nebraska law a plaintiff must have access to the defendant for a lawsuit to move forward. The opinion read, “Given that this Court finds that there can never be service effectuated on the named Defendant this action will be dismissed with prejudice.”

Chambers invoked theological arguments to prove that God has had plenty of notice—in fact, God had known about the lawsuit even before it was filed. “The court itself acknowledges the existence of God,” Chambers argued. “A consequence of that acknowledgment is a recognition of God’s omniscience.” Therefore, since God knows everything, he clearly had full notice of the lawsuit, perhaps even “predestining” the lawsuit, according to some pundits.

He also cited other of God’s divine attributes: “If God is omnipresent,” Chambers said in his court hearing, “then he is here in Douglas County and in this courtroom.” Chambers did attempt other means of “serving” the defendant, but to no avail. According to his complaint, he made a “reasonable” attempt to effectuate personal service on the defendant by entreating, “Come out, come out, wherever you are.” He also considered serving the defendant through putative “agents”—representatives of various religious denominations who are authorized to speak for and represent the defendant. But, alas, the conclusion was that it would be a “futile and perhaps unlawful act” to mail a notice to the front door of each agent, even if every one were known.

Chambers presented these arguments in court in August. He insisted that, because our country has a history of acknowledging God’s existence, Polk should take judicial notice of the His existence for the purpose of this lawsuit. As evidence that the U.S. has cognized the deity’s existence, Chambers cited the phrase “In God We Trust,” on U.S. currency, the fact that God is invoked during oaths in court hearings, and the prayers offered by chaplains before legislative bodies.

Chambers’ motion to take judicial notice of God was denied as moot.

His lawsuit, which cut into the state’s finite judicial resources to litigate, was an attempt to make a statement about the necessity of access to the courts for everyone, regardless of whether they are rich or poor. “Nobody should stand at the courthouse door to predetermine who has access to the courts,” he said. “My point is that anyone can sue anyone else, even God.”

Chambers was ultimately driven to file the litigation after at least two attempts by fellow senators to limit frivolous lawsuits. “I was able to fend them off ,” Chambers said. “A lawsuit is not frivolous until a court declares it so.”

Chambers has not decided whether he is going to appeal.

* Deborah O’Malley is a Research Associate in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. 

Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at info@fedsoc.org.