This is a disappointing setback, but some of the reports about the Supreme Court’s ruling have been misleading.
The Supreme Court on Monday said ordinary taxpayers don’t have the legal standing to challenge a White House initiative helping religious charities get a share of federal money.
The 5-4 decision dealt with a suit by a group of atheists and agnostics against Bush administration officials including the head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.
The taxpayers’ group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc., objected to government conferences in which administration officials encourage religious charities to apply for federal grants.
Taxpayers in the case “set out a parade of horribles that they claim could occur” unless the court stopped the Bush administration initiative, wrote Justice Samuel Alito. “Of course, none of these things has happened.”
Actually, plenty of those “horribles” did happen. Thanks to Bush’s faith-based scheme, there are plenty of instances in which vulnerable people have been proselytized with public funds, faith-based grants have been blatantly politicized to further a partisan agenda, religious ministries are treated as just another special interest group competing for grants from the federal government, and extremist groups most American would find offensive have sought and received assistance from taxpayers. All of these things happened, and five Supreme Court justices just made it harder for Americans to challenge the practice in court.
That’s the bad news. The good news is the court case wasn’t explicitly about whether Bush’s faith-based initiative is constitutional, but rather, about the extent to which taxpayers can file lawsuits challenging government support of religion. It’s why some of this morning’s reports have been misleading: the Supreme Court didn’t give its blessing to the White House’s program; it just made it harder to file suit challenging the program.
Some friends of mine helped flesh this out.
The high court, ruling 5-4, rejected a case challenging Bush administration spending to promote the “faith-based” initiative using money from a White House discretionary fund. The court majority ruled in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation that taxpayers have no right to challenge discretionary spending by the executive branch.
“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.”
In other words, today’s ruling was bad, but it could have been worse.
It’s worth adding, however, that the 5-4 Roberts Court was awfully busy this morning.
EPA’s responsibility to protect endangered species weakened: In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the federal government can avoid its responsibility to protect species under the Endangered Species Act by handing off authority to the states. The EPA routinely delegates administration of the Clean Water Act to states. The Court’s decision means the EPA does not have to ensure that states abide by the federal Endangered Species Act when they issue Clean Water Act permits. [National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife and a companion case]
Campaign finance restrictions weakened for corporate- and union-funded ads: In a 5-4 decision, the Court loosened restrictions on corporate- and union-funded television ads that air close to elections, “weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.” The court “upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections.” [Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right-to-Life]
The court also ruled against a student who unfurled a “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner in school.
Ultimately, the high court sided with conservative interests across the board. In each instance, the ruling was 5 to 4, and the minority was made up of the same four left-leaning justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens). Alito wrote two of the opinions, and Roberts wrote the other two.
Had Kerry won Ohio in 2004, the right probably would have lost in each of these cases. I guess it’s one of those elections-have-consequences moments, isn’t it?