Taxpayers can't sue over faith-based initiatives

A White House program to aid religious groups in providing social services survives a court test.

from the June 26, 2007 edition

Page 2 of 2

Page 1 | 2

Justice David Souter wrote a dissent in which Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer joined. Justice Souter said he saw no difference between taxpayers permitted to sue under the Flast precedent to challenge a congressional act and taxpayers trying to sue for a similar alleged constitutional injury because of actions of a federal agency.

The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by a Wisconsin-based group, The Freedom from Religion Foundation. The suit alleges that Mr. Bush's faith-based initiative program violated the establishment clause by using congressionally appropriated funds to promote religious organizations in conferences run by the executive branch.

Religious groups as government partners

The faith-based initiative reflects Bush's view that religious groups should work in closer partnership with government to provide nonreligious public services such as drug counseling, soup kitchens, and homeless shelters.

In defending it, lawyers for the administration said the 1968 exception applies only to congressional appropriations. The conferences held under the faith-based initiative, they said, were carried out using general appropriations for the executive branch.

Opponents of this approach see it as an unconstitutional breach of the wall separating church and state.

At issue was whether taxpayers had legal standing necessary to wage their court challenge. In general, taxpayers cannot sue the government over how tax revenues are spent, but the Flast precedent did permit lawsuits under the First Amendment challenging Congress's appropriation of money or supplies to religious groups.

1 | Page 2