June 27, 2007 | Read Time: 3 minutes
Washington
In a 5-to-4 decision issued on Monday, the Supreme Court sided with the Bush administration, ruling that average citizens and watchdog groups do not have the legal right to challenge a federal program that awards grants to religious charities.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote the majority opinion in the case, Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, which raised questions about the constitutionality of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.
President Bush established the office six years ago to steer more government grants to religious organizations that run social-service programs.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Madison, Wis., charity that promotes the separation of church and state, said the White House effort violated the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from making laws “regarding an establishment of religion” and sued the government in 2004.
In the Supreme Court ruling, the White House office’s constitutionality was not the issue.
Instead, the question the Court considered was whether watchdog groups or concerned individual taxpayers had legal grounds to pursue such a lawsuit, even if they were not directly hurt by the existence of the White House office.
In the decision issued today, Justice Alito argued that citizens and charities do not have such a right.
“If every federal taxpayer could sue to challenge any government expenditure,” he wrote, “the federal courts would cease to function as courts of law and would be cast in the role of general complaint bureaus.”
Justice Alito also noted that the the White House had used its own funds for the office, and that Congress had not passed any laws specifically related to financing its activities. As a result, Justice Alito said, the Supreme Court did not have to follow previous legal rulings that allow taxpayers to challenge specific congressional appropriations.
President Bush called today’s ruling “a win for the thousands of community and faith-based nonprofits all across the country that have partnered with government at all levels to service their neighbors.”
Annie Laurie, co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation says the decision “whittles away taxpayers’ rights” and “insulates the executive branch from review by the courts.”
“It’s an imperial-presidency decision,” she said. “The administration will be dipping into this decision to do other things to increase the power of the presidency beyond just church-state matters.”
Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, issued a statement saying the decision “blocks the courthouse door for Americans with legitimate church-state grievances.”
Meanwhile, Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, a Washington charity that filed a Supreme Court brief in support of the Bush Administration’s position, issued a statement praising the decision.
“This is a very significant victory that sends a powerful message that atheists and others antagonistic to religion do not get an automatic free pass to bring establishment-clause lawsuits.” Mr. Sekulow said.
Justice Alito was joined in the majority opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Justice Anothony Scalia wrote a concuring opinion joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice David H. Souter wrote the minority opinion, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Stephen G. Breyer.
(To learn more about the group that pursued the case, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, read The Chronicle’s recent profile.)
