The U.S. Supreme Court ended its recent term by issuing a series of 5-to-4 decisions in cases dealing with President Bush's faith-based initiative, religious expression, interest group-funded campaign ads and racial diversity in public schools.
The court ruled that federal taxpayers cannot challenge the constitutionality of the President's authorization of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, under which charities and non-profit organizations can apply for government grants to provide an array of social services. The decision reversed a federal appellate court ruling last year in favor of the lawsuit filed on behalf of members of the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation.
The majority opinion, penned by Justice Samuel Alito, noted, "If every federal taxpayer could sue to challenge any government expenditure, the federal courts would cease to function as courts of law and would be cast in the role of general complaint bureaus."
But in the dissenting opinion, Justice David Souter wrote, "When executive agencies spend identifiable sums of tax money for religious purposes, no less than when Congress authorizes the same thing, taxpayers suffer injury."
The President said, the decision marked a "substantial victory" for efforts by Americans to more effectively aid people in need.
"The Faith-Based and Community Initiative can remain focused on strengthening America's armies of compassion and expanding their good works. Similar efforts by governors and mayors in states and cities all across the country can also continue to advance.
From the first days of my administration, we've championed the idea that those in need are better served when government draws on the strengths of every willing community partner, secular and faith-based, large and small. These efforts fortify America's safety net and expand our nation's supply of compassion.
This ruling is a win for the thousands of community and faith-based nonprofits all across the country that have partnered with government at all levels to serve their neighbors. Most importantly, it's a win for the many whose lives have been lifted by the caring touch and compassionate hearts of these organizations," the President stated. The American Center for Law and Justice filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the Bush administration's position, which prevailed.
ACLJ Chief Counsel, Jay Sekulow, said, "This sends a powerful message that atheists and others antagonistic to religion do not get an automatic free pass to bring Establishment Clause lawsuits. The Supreme Court got it right in determining that the plaintiffs who challenged the President's faith-based initiative had no legal standing to do so. This decision will have serious ramifications for separationist attempts to claim special privileges to sue as taxpayers without showing that a law or government activity actually injured them in any way. By rejecting a claim to special treatment for atheists and other separationists, the high court took an important step toward restoring equity to the legal system with respect to federal challenges in the Establishment Clause arena," Sekulow said.
In speaking out against the ruling, Freedom From Religion Foundation lawyer, Richard Bolton, said, "We are disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision, particularly given the court's long commitment to principles that taxpayers should not be forced to contribute to the government's support of religion. The court's opinion simply cannot be reconciled with previous precedents. It cannot be squared with a commitment to enforcing the Establishment Clause," Bolton said. Americans United For Separation of Church and State Executive Director, the Rev. Barry Lynn, expressed dismay over the ruling.
This is a disappointing decision that blocks the courthouse door for Americans with legitimate church-state grievances. Taxpayers should be allowed to challenge public funding of religion, whether the money is allocated by Congress or the White House.
However, it is important to note that this ruling applies only to a few situations. Most church-state lawsuits, including those that challenge congressional appropriations for faith-based programs, will not be affected," Lynn said.
The high court sided with a public school principal in Alaska in a case in which she disciplined a student who unfurled a disparaging banner that said, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."
Juneau-Douglas High School Principal Deborah Morse suspended student Joseph Frederick for ten days, on grounds that the banner promoted illegal drug use in violation of school policy. Frederick unfurled the banner as the Olympic torch passed near the school in 2002.
Frederick, who sued the district over his suspension, later said that the banner was not meant to make a statement, but rather was intended "to be meaningless and funny, in order to get on television."
Chief Justice Roberts, in the narrow ruling, said, "Schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use."
A number of conservative religious organizations disagreed with Frederick's message, but were concerned that the court might give schools power to limit student religious expression that officials find offensive.
Liberty Counsel, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, was pleased with the court's decision.
"While this ruling permits school officials to ban pro-drug messages at school-sponsored events, students retain their constitutional right to speak on religious, political or moral issues while on campus during non-instructional time," Liberty Counsel Founder, Mathew Staver stated.
Likewise, Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel for Liberty Legal Institute, noted, "The Supreme Court's narrow ruling gives schools the authority to regulate illegal drug speech, while still protecting student free speech, including religious expression, from unbridled censorship."
However, American Civil Liberties Union National Legal Director, Steven Shapiro, criticized the decision.
"The court's ruling imposes new restrictions on student speech rights and creates a drug exception to the First Amendment. The decision purports to be narrow, and the court rejected the most sweeping arguments for school censorship. But because the decision is based on the court's view about the value of speech concerning drugs, it is difficult to know what its impact will be in other cases involving unpopular speech," Shapiro said.
In another case, the Supreme Court loosened restrictions on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that barred pre-election issue ads 30 days prior to a primary election and 60 days before a general election. The court upheld an appellate court ruling that said, Wisconsin Right to Life should have been allowed to air ads encouraging people to tell that state's Senators, Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, both Democrats, not to filibuster the President's judicial nominees within 30 days of the 2004 primary election.
WRTL Executive Director, Barbara Lyons, hailed the decision. "The U.S. Supreme Court restored the right of citizens and citizen organizations to engage in grassroots lobbying through the use of broadcast communications. This is a tremendous victory for all citizens and citizen organizations," Lyons said.
WRTL Lead Counsel, James Bopp, added, "Grassroots lobbying is important to citizens' involvement in their own government, and it has nothing to do with elections. The court has now restored to the people the most effective means, broadcast ads, for efforts to influence incumbent politicians when they pass laws to tax and regulate us."
The high court also restricted the ability of public school districts to use race to determine which schools students can attend. At issue were voluntary integration plans in Seattle, Washington, and Louisville, Kentucky, that were aimed at addressing racial segregation in the schools.
Chief Justice Roberts, in the majority opinion, stated, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
The court stopped short of barring public school systems from making racial diversity a goal, and suggested that the districts can locate new schools with an eye toward increasing diversity, and consider neighborhood demographics when attendance lines are drawn up.
Theodore Shaw, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, expressed disappointment with the ruling.
"In some ways, considering what we anticipated, it's not as bad as it could have been, but it's bad."
In the wake of these rulings, and the President's naming of Roberts and Alito to the high court, some say the court now has a decidedly conservative leaning. Voting in the majority in the four cases along with Roberts and Alito, were fellow Catholic Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy.
Washington lawyer Thomas Goldstein, who specializes in Supreme Court litigation, told the Washington Post, "Conservatives got everything they could reasonably have hoped for out of the term. The table is set, particularly if there are more changes in the court, for wholesale changes in constitutional law. There were some incremental steps, but they were in a distinct direction, and a uniform direction."
White House spokesman Dana Perino praised the new justices, but downplayed any conservative disposition on the part of the court "Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito are proving themselves to be ones who have the intellectual vigor that they can bring to the bench. Since the judiciary is the third branch of government, I think that we can all be very proud that we have a system in which they can make decisions, even if they are close decisions, and we, as a country, we abide by them," Perino said.
[Home] [Introducing UNI] [News Coverage] [Features Page][Publications]