Case Offers Supreme Court Opportunity to End Special Privileges that Allow Frivolous Attacks on Reli

"Church/state separationists have been given a free pass in federal court to bring Establishment Clause lawsuits. That is not only unfair, but wrong." - Jay Sekulow, ACLJ Chief Counsel

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28, 2007—The Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in a case that presents an important opportunity to put an end to special privileges that allow people to attack religion with federal lawsuits by simply proving they are taxpayers.

Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation (U.S. No.  06-157) challenges the use of taxpayer dollars to fund a program through President Bush's faith-based initiative. The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has filed an amicus brief with the high court in support of the federal government's position. But as one of the nation's leading defenders of religious liberties, the ACLJ believes there is more at stake.

"There is no constitutional conflict regarding the faith-based initiatives," said ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, who attended today's oral arguments. "The Supreme Court should leave the faith-based initiative alone and focus on removing the special privileges afforded to atheists and others who are antagonistic to religion."

According to Sekulow and the ACLJ, church/state separationists currently have a free pass in federal court to bring Establishment Clause lawsuits, which allows them to attack religion with often frivolous lawsuits.

"They have not had to show that a law or government activity actually injured them in any way before they could challenge it in federal court. All they had to do was show that they were taxpayers.  That is not only unfair, but wrong. We're hopeful the Supreme Court will put an end to the special treatment given to these plaintiffs," said Sekulow.

In its friend-of-the-court brief in support of the federal government (posted at www.aclj.org), the ACLJ points out that no federal taxpayer suits are allowed in any other context aside from Establishment Clause suits challenging federal spending. That exception, the ACLJ brief notes, rests on the 1968 decision of Flast v. Cohen. Subsequent to Flast, however, the Supreme Court has refused to expand Flast and has rejected each and every argument the Court made in support of that decision.

"This case should not be used as a test case on how taxpayer funds are spent," said Sekulow. "Instead, the high court needs to bring an end to the special treatment the Flast precedent gives to atheists and other separationists.  That special treatment creates an uneven playing field because it empowers every disgruntled atheist to make a federal case out of any hint of religion in a government action."

Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice specializes in constitutional law and focuses on religious liberty litigation. The ACLJ is based in Washington, D.C.  and is online at www.aclj.org. 

-30-