Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.

2007-06-25

Headline: Taxpayers cannot sue over executive-branch faith-based conferences; Court blocks taxpayer suits challenging presidentially created programs funded from general appropriations, limiting who can bring Establishment Clause claims.

Holding: The Court held that federal taxpayers lack standing to challenge discretionary Executive Branch expenditures for faith-based conferences because Flast’s narrow taxpayer-standing exception applies only to exercises of Congress’ taxing-and-spending power.

Real World Impact:

Limits taxpayer ability to sue over executive-branch speech or conferences.
Confines Establishment Clause taxpayer suits to congressional spending actions.
Protects routine executive use of general appropriations from taxpayer challenges.

Topics: religion and government, taxpayer standing, executive branch funding, Establishment Clause, faith-based initiatives

Summary

Background

An anti-government-endorsement-of-religion group and three of its members sued directors of the White House Office and agency centers created to help faith-based groups compete for federal support. The offices were created by executive order and paid from general Executive Branch appropriations rather than by a specific congressional statute or earmarked appropriation. The plaintiffs said conferences and speeches promoted religion and sought to challenge those expenditures as an Establishment Clause violation by asserting federal taxpayer standing.

Reasoning

The Court framed the central question as whether the narrow Flast exception to the usual rule against taxpayer suits extends to discretionary Executive Branch spending paid from general appropriations. The majority stressed Article III standing rules: plaintiffs must show a personal injury that is traceable to the defendant and likely redressable by the courts. Flast, the Court said, created a limited exception only for challenges to exercises of Congress’ taxing-and-spending power tied to specific statutory authorizations and appropriations. Because the conferences at issue were funded through broad executive-branch accounts and not by a congressionally mandated program, respondents lacked the required nexus to invoke Flast and therefore lacked standing.

Real world impact

The decision narrows when ordinary federal taxpayers can bring Establishment Clause suits: routine executive speeches, conferences, and discretionary programs paid from general appropriations are generally insulated from taxpayer suits. The ruling does not decide whether the activities challenged actually violated the Constitution — it only says these plaintiffs cannot pursue the claim as taxpayers.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia (joined by Thomas) argued Flast should be overruled entirely; Justice Kennedy concurred with the judgment on separation-of-powers grounds; Justice Souter dissented, urging that Flast should apply here.