Supreme Court Must End Special Privileges for Church-State Separationist Taxpayer Plaintiffs

The Supreme Court of the United States has an important opportunity to put an end to federal taxpayer lawsuits by church-state separationists.  Yesterday, the Court heard oral arguments in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation a case that also focuses on a challenge of using taxpayer dollars to fund a program of President Bushs faith-based initiative.  We filed an amicus brief with the high court in support of the federal governments position.

There is no constitutional conflict in using tax dollars to fund faith-based initiatives. The Supreme Court should leave the faith-based initiative alone and focus on removing the special privileges afforded to atheists and others who are antagonistic to religion.  The church/state separationists have been given a free pass in federal court to bring Establishment Clause lawsuits. They have not had to show that a law or government activity actually injured them in any way before they could challenge it in federal court. All they had to do was show that they were taxpayers. That is not only unfair, but wrong.  Were hopeful the Supreme Court will put an end to the special treatment given to these plaintiffs.

In the Hein case, separationist taxpayers challenged a federal faith-based initiatives program. The federal district court in Wisconsin dismissed the case, ruling that taxpayers had no standing capacity to sue because there was no federal grant at issue. But a federal appeals court reinstated the suit ruling that the separationists had standing to challenge the use of federal funds to run the challenged program. The federal government appealed to the Supreme Court.

In our friend-of-the-court brief in support of the federal government, we point out that no federal taxpayer suits are allowed in any other context aside from Establishment Clause suits challenging federal spending. That exception rests on the 1968 decision of Flast v. Cohen. Subsequent to Flast, however, the Supreme Court has refused to expand Flast and has rejected every argument the Court had made in the Flast decision.

This case should not be used as a test case on how taxpayer funds are spent.  Instead, the high court needs to bring an end to the special treatment given to atheists and other separationists. The Flast precedent has created an uneven playing field because it empowered every disgruntled atheist to make a federal case out of any hint of religion in a government action.