WASHINGTON (RNS) As the U.S. Supreme Court ends its 2010-2011 term this week, legal scholars say a decision issued two months ago is likely to resonate within church-state debates for years to come.
On April 4, the justices rejected a challenge to an Arizona school tuition credit program that largely benefits religious schools, saying taxpayers did not have legal grounds to challenge a tax credit as government spending.
At the heart of the decision was an arcane yet essential legal term — “standing,” or a plaintiff’s right to sue. Critics say the court increasingly relies on standing to dismiss church-state challenges without addressing the merits of the complaints.
Tags: Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, Arizona School Tuition Credit, Church-State Separation, establishment clause, Flast v. Cohen, Legal Standing, Plaintiff's Right To Sue, separation of church and state, Supreme Court
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
One Response to Justices Rely On ‘Standing’ to Dismiss Church-State Disputes
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This judgment is a disaster for religious freedom in this country. A recent challenge to the ‘five preferred religions in California prisons’ policy brought by representatives of minority religions (led by a Wiccan) was turned down, citing the Arizona case. It’s a clear case of government favoring some traditions and ignoring others, because they have no ‘standing’ – an American travesty. I hope and trust that Religious Freedom USA and First Amendment organizations everywhere will pick up this cause, unpack the consequences for the public, and make it an issue in the forthcoming election.