posted on June 26, 2007 08:45:10 AM new Supreme Court Says No to Challenge of Federal Faith-Based Initiative
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
June 25, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court Monday blocked a lawsuit by atheists and agnostics against the White House's faith-based initiative, which helps religious charities get federal grants. The suit targeted eight Bush administration officials, including the head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the taxpayers' group the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., which filed the suit, "set out a parade of horribles that they claim could occur" if the initiative is allowed to go forward. "Of course, none of these things has happened."
The conservative American Center for Law and Justice applauded the ruling, saying it "sends a powerful message that atheists and others antagonistic to religion do not get an automatic free pass to bring Establishment Clause lawsuits."
"The Supreme Court got it right in determining that the plaintiffs who challenged the president's faith-based initiative had no legal standing to do so," said ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow.
"This decision will have serious ramifications for separationist attempts to claim special privileges to sue as taxpayers without showing that a law or government activity actually injured them in any way. This is an important victory for the judicial system and for the president's faith-based initiative," said Sekulow.
"By rejecting a claim to special treatment for atheists and other separationists, the high court took an important step toward restoring equity to the legal system with respect to federal challenges in the Establishment Clause arena," he added.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State called the ruling "disappointing."
"This is a disappointing decision that blocks the courthouse door for Americans with legitimate church-state grievances," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "Taxpayers should be allowed to challenge public funding of religion, whether the money is allocated by Congress or the White House.
"However," Lynn continued, "it is important to note that this ruling applies to only a few situations. Most church-state lawsuits, including those that challenge congressional appropriations for faith-based programs, will not be affected."
Alito said the "case falls outside" of a 1968 Supreme Court ruling - involving the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which financed educational materials in religious schools in poor areas - that allowed taxpayers to challenge federal programs that promote religion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
www.washingtontimes.com
Article published Jun 26, 2007
Faith groups notch Supreme Court win
June 26, 2007
By Jon Ward - THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The Supreme Court yesterday rejected a lawsuit that sought to bar religious groups from government conferences on nonprofit funding, in a ruling that conservative groups heralded as a landmark opinion that will eliminate an entire class of suits against religion in public life.
The court ruled 5-4 against the Freedom From Religion Foundation's suit claiming that conferences run by the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives had violated the First Amendment's ban on the establishment of religion.
The justices did not decide the merits of the case, ruling instead that the secularist group did not have standing to sue the Bush administration, since they could not demonstrate any specific injury to themselves.
"The plaintiffs contend that they meet the standing requirements of Article III of the Constitution because they pay federal taxes. It has long been established, however, that the payment of taxes is generally not enough to establish standing to challenge an action taken by the Federal Government," wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. in his majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony M. Kennedy.
"If every federal taxpayer could sue to challenge any Government expenditure, the federal courts would cease to function as courts of law and would be cast in the role of general complaint bureaus," Justice Alito wrote, adding that Congress could also check an administration that committed some of the "parade of horribles" the plaintiffs claimed could happen.
Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer disagreed, saying in their dissent that the court should have allowed the challenge to proceed.
The majority "closes the door on these taxpayers because the Executive Branch, and not the Legislative Branch, caused their injury," wrote Justice Souter. "I see no basis for this distinction."
Jay Hein, director of the White House's faith-based office, said the conferences in question are training seminars for nonprofits of all kinds, and that religious groups usually make up about half of the invited parties. He added that religious groups receiving or applying for federal funds are instructed at the seminars on how to avoid promoting their religion with federal dollars, precisely to comply with the establishment clause.
Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Madison, Wis.-based nonprofit group, said the administration conferences were designed to promote, and had the effect of promoting, religious groups.
Legal precedent allows taxpayers to sue in response to a congressional appropriation of specific funds which specifically injures them. Yesterday's decision narrows an exception — the 1968 Flast v. Cohen ruling — that allowed taxpayers to file suit against a limited number of actions by the executive branch without having to prove personal injury.
Justice Scalia, with Justice Thomas joining him, wrote a separate opinion that said he favored doing away with the Flast loophole altogether.
Nonetheless, Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, said the ruling's narrowing of the Flast exception "eliminates an entire body of litigation," such as lawsuits against minister-led prayer at a president's inauguration.
"It really has changed the landscape," Mr. Sekulow said. "It's very sweeping in scope. ... Under no area of law can you file a lawsuit just because you disagree with something the government is doing."
President Bush called the ruling "a substantial victory for efforts by Americans to more effectively aid our neighbors in need of help."
However, the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, downplayed the significance of the court's ruling, and said that "the legal assault on the constitutionality of the faith-based programs will continue."
"This is not a disastrous decision for all church-state litigation," Mr. Lynn said.
-----------------------------
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 26, 2007 09:03 AM ]
