Supreme Court to hear case related to administration's Faith-Based Initiative

February 26, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON —The U.S. Supreme Court, Wednesday, will hear arguments in a case to decide whether citizens have standing as taxpayers to sue the government over portions of the President’s Faith-Based Initiative.

In this case, the Freedom from Religion Foundation challenges aspects of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, specifically several conferences designed to increase the participation of religious groups in providing social services. The Foundation claims the conferences were vehicles for proselytization and violated the Constitution’s protection against government establishment of religion. The government argues that the plaintiffs lack standing to sue.

The issue of “standing to sue” requires plaintiffs to show they have been injured by a defendant’s action. In Flast v. Cohen, the Supreme Court recognized that taxpayers may satisfy standing requirements when challenging government spending in violation of the Establishment Clause.

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty filed an amicus brief with other organizations supportive of church-state separation. In it, the BJC argues that the Court’s previous decision in Flast v. Cohen “is consistent with, and remains vital to, [the Supreme Court’s] standing jurisprudence.”

“When taxes levied and appropriated by Congress are spent in violation of the Establishment Clause, a taxpayer may constitutionally challenge such expenditures because he suffers a direct and concrete injury that is caused by the illegal expenditure and that would be redressed by enjoining it,” the BJC brief states.

BJC General Counsel K. Hollyn Hollman said the government’s position threatens to insulate government spending in support of religion.

“This case is important to America’s tradition of religious liberty because it addresses rules that allow lawsuits to protect our first freedom,” Hollman said. “The government dangerously seeks to restrict circumstances in which taxpayers can challenge activity in violation of the Establishment Clause.

“As soon as government starts to meddle in religion, for or against, or take sides in matters of religion, favoring one over another, someone’s religious liberty is denied and everyone’s is threatened,” Hollman said.

To read amicus brief in its entirety, click here: BJC Amicus Brief.pdf