RandFan
11th December 2006, 08:09 PM
Justices to Decide if Citizens May Challenge White House's Religion-Based Initiative (http://richarddawkins.net/article,383,Justices-to-Decide-if-Citizens-May-Challenge-White-Houses-Religion-Based-Initiative,Linda-GreenhouseNY-Times)
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 — The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether private citizens are entitled to go to court to challenge activities of the White House office in charge of the Bush administration's religion-based initiative.
A lower court had blocked a lawsuit challenging conferences the White House office holds for the purpose of teaching religious organizations how to apply and compete for federal grants. That constitutional challenge, by a group advocating the strict separation of church and state, was reinstated by an appeals court; the administration in turn appealed to the Supreme Court.
...
The decision was overturned, and the lawsuit reinstated, in a 2-to-1 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago. Writing for the majority, Judge Richard A. Posner said the distinction cited by Judge Shabaz made no difference. Judge Posner said the plaintiffs were entitled to challenge the conferences "as propaganda vehicles for religion," even if they were neither financed through a specific Congressional appropriation nor made grants directly to religious groups.
As a general matter, people do not have standing, based solely on their status as taxpayers, to challenge the expenditure of federal money. The Supreme Court's precedents have carved out religion cases as an exception to this general rule. I think the case should have gone forward without SCOTUS. However this should be a good test for the Court. They should rule in favor for the plaintiffs.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 — The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether private citizens are entitled to go to court to challenge activities of the White House office in charge of the Bush administration's religion-based initiative.
A lower court had blocked a lawsuit challenging conferences the White House office holds for the purpose of teaching religious organizations how to apply and compete for federal grants. That constitutional challenge, by a group advocating the strict separation of church and state, was reinstated by an appeals court; the administration in turn appealed to the Supreme Court.
...
The decision was overturned, and the lawsuit reinstated, in a 2-to-1 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago. Writing for the majority, Judge Richard A. Posner said the distinction cited by Judge Shabaz made no difference. Judge Posner said the plaintiffs were entitled to challenge the conferences "as propaganda vehicles for religion," even if they were neither financed through a specific Congressional appropriation nor made grants directly to religious groups.
As a general matter, people do not have standing, based solely on their status as taxpayers, to challenge the expenditure of federal money. The Supreme Court's precedents have carved out religion cases as an exception to this general rule. I think the case should have gone forward without SCOTUS. However this should be a good test for the Court. They should rule in favor for the plaintiffs.