High Court denies taxpayers’ ability to challenge faith-based funding’

WASHINGTON — A closely divided Supreme Court ruled June 25 that a group of taxpayers do not have the legal standing to challenge President Bush’s promotion of religious charities just because they think it violates the First Amendment.

In a 5-4 ruling that could have implications for the courts’ ability to hear religion lawsuits, the majority said that status as a taxpayer does not qualify one to sue over federal expenditures not clearly tied to congressional action, even when those expenditures violate religious freedom.

The decision in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation is a victory for the White House and something of a setback for advocates of strong church-state separation. It also marks the first time the Supreme Court has dealt with President Bush’s efforts to expand the government’s ability to fund social services through churches and other religious charities.

“This ruling is a win for the thousands of community and faith-based nonprofits all across the country that have partnered with government at all levels to serve their neighbors,” Bush said in a statement the White House released after the decision. “Most importantly, it is a win for the many whose lives have been lifted by the caring touch and compassionate hearts of these organizations.”

The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation sued the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, headed by director Jay Hein. The suit claimed the office and its actions violate the Constitution’s ban on government establishment of religion.

A federal district court dismissed the suit, saying the plaintiffs did not have standing to argue the case in court. But the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling, saying the Foundation and three of its members, as taxpayers, had the right to challenge White House allocations used to fund conferences that promoted the faith-based initiative.

The Supreme Court has long held that taxpayers do not generally have standing to sue the government over how it disburses funds because the connection between individual taxpayer contributions and expenditures is too remote. Individuals who sue the government must prove a specific “injury,” in legal terms, from the governmental act.

In 1968, the court recognized a special exception to the generalized standing doctrine in regard to Establishment Clause cases. In Flast v. Cohen, the court said the exception was reasonable because of the special history of the clause, which bars government support for religion. Many of the Constitution’s framers argued forcefully against European-style state support and financing of churches.

But in the latest decision, the majority noted Congress did not specifically authorize the expenditures — instead, they came from general funds that Congress provided to Bush. Therefore, the court said, the plaintiffs didn’t meet the Flast decision’s test requiring a clear nexus between congressional action and the government expenditure alleged to violate the establishment clause.

— ABP