At the time, the Constitution of Maryland required "a declaration of belief in the existence of God" for a person to hold "any office of profit or trust in this State".Torcaso, believing his constitutional rights to freedom of religious expression had been infringed, filed suit in a Maryland Circuit Court.Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.Writing for the Court in Torcaso, Justice Hugo Black cited Everson v. Board of Education and applied the Everson holding: There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us — it sets up a religious test which was designed to and, if valid, does bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public "office of profit or trust" in Maryland.In Footnote 1 of the opinion, Justice Black wrote: Appellant also claimed that the State's test oath requirement violates the provision of Art.Because we are reversing the judgment on other grounds, we find it unnecessary to consider appellant's contention that this provision applies to state as well as federal offices.Some religious groups have argued that in Torcaso the Supreme Court "found" secular humanism to be a religion.