Court to hear challenge to faith based initiative

RandFan · 11th December 2006, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Justices to Decide if Citizens May Challenge White House's Religion-Based Initiative

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.

drkitten · 12th December 2006, 07:49 AM

Minor quibble. This isn't yet about "Court to hear challenge to faith based initiative."

This is about "Court hear argument on whether or not to hear challenge to faith based initiative."

ceo_esq · 12th December 2006, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Minor quibble. This isn't yet about "Court to hear challenge to faith based initiative."

This is about "Court hear argument on whether or not to hear challenge to faith based initiative."

Good point. The Supreme Court will be dealing with a technical jurisdictional question here, not the underlying church-state separation question.

More specifically, the single question on review is:

Quote:

Whether taxpayers have standing under Article III of the Constitution to challenge on Establishment Clause grounds the actions of Executive Branch officials pursuant to an Executive Order, where the plaintiffs challenge no Act of Congress, the Executive Branch actions at issue are financed only indirectly through general appropriations, and no funds are disbursed to any entities or individuals outside the government.

Some interesting (to lawyers, anyway) arguments on both sides exist. The jurisdictional ruling on review brought the Seventh Circuit into conflict with certain of its sister circuits, so this case was a good candidate for Supreme Court intervention.

RandFan · 15th December 2006, 07:14 PM

Thanks.

11th December 2006, 08:09 PM	#1
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,134	Court to hear challenge to faith based initiative Quote: Justices to Decide if Citizens May Challenge White House's Religion-Based Initiative 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.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

12th December 2006, 08:55 AM	#3
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940	Originally Posted by drkitten Minor quibble. This isn't yet about "Court to hear challenge to faith based initiative." This is about "Court hear argument on whether or not to hear challenge to faith based initiative." Good point. The Supreme Court will be dealing with a technical jurisdictional question here, not the underlying church-state separation question. More specifically, the single question on review is: Quote: Whether taxpayers have standing under Article III of the Constitution to challenge on Establishment Clause grounds the actions of Executive Branch officials pursuant to an Executive Order, where the plaintiffs challenge no Act of Congress, the Executive Branch actions at issue are financed only indirectly through general appropriations, and no funds are disbursed to any entities or individuals outside the government. Some interesting (to lawyers, anyway) arguments on both sides exist. The jurisdictional ruling on review brought the Seventh Circuit into conflict with certain of its sister circuits, so this case was a good candidate for Supreme Court intervention.
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940

15th December 2006, 07:14 PM	#4
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,134	Thanks.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

12th December 2006, 07:49 AM	#2
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Minor quibble. This isn't yet about "Court to hear challenge to faith based initiative." This is about "Court hear argument on whether or not to hear challenge to faith based initiative."