A key issue facing the Supreme Court next week when they hear arguments in Salazar v. Buono – the dispute over the Mojave National Preserve cross – is the question of standing. Who has the legal right to challenge such a monument? The LATimes has a debate between Joseph Infranco, Alliance Defense Fund senior counsel and Erwin Chemerinsky, UC Irvine School of Law dean.
Infranco: Standing generally requires that individuals have a concrete and particularized injury, and not something hypothetical or speculative — like offended sensibilities. It is impossible to foresee the many ways concrete harm can occur, but mere feelings should not be enough to attack things like the national motto or Pledge of Allegiance because they acknowledge God as part of our heritage. Nor should it be a basis to attack a veterans' memorial because the military uses the symbol of a cross. In fact, I suspect the ACLU uses offended observers in such cases because it cannot find plaintiffs who have suffered concrete injuries.
…
Chemerinsky: You say, Joe, that only those who suffer "objective harm" can sue to challenge a religious symbol on government property. You say that individuals who object to religious symbols, such as crosses on government property, have no more of an injury than "offended sensibilities." Your position seems to be that no one has standing to challenge a religious symbol on government property.
…
At the very least, the government must be neutral among and toward religion. Such neutrality is not and never has been about hostility to religion.To enforce that neutrality, someone must have standing to sue to challenge offending religious symbols. Any person who encounters such symbols has standing to sue.
The Baptist Joint Committee has filed an amicus brief arguing for standing in this case.
