## Facts

- President George W. Bush created the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and related faith-based centers within several federal agencies by executive order.
- The offices and centers were funded through general Executive Branch appropriations rather than a specific, targeted congressional spending program.
- Executive officials organized and participated in conferences that, according to the challengers, favored religious community groups and used religious messaging.
- The challengers were a nonprofit organization and three individual federal taxpayers.
- The challengers did not allege denial of benefits, exclusion from government programs, coercion, or any individualized injury; they relied solely on federal taxpayer status.
- The district court dismissed for lack of standing; the court of appeals reversed and found taxpayer standing; the Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether federal taxpayers have Article III standing to bring an Establishment Clause challenge to discretionary Executive Branch expenditures funded from general appropriations rather than a specific congressional taxing-and-spending enactment.
2. Whether the taxpayer-standing exception recognized in *Flast v. Cohen* applies to Executive Branch activities financed by general appropriations.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and held that the challengers lacked standing.
- The plurality reaffirmed the general rule that payment of federal taxes does not, by itself, establish a judicially cognizable injury.
- The Court treated *Flast v. Cohen* as a narrow exception limited to challenges to specific congressional exercises of the taxing and spending power alleged to violate the Establishment Clause.
- Because the challenged expenditures were undertaken through Executive Branch discretion and not pursuant to a specific congressional spending program alleged to violate the Establishment Clause, the required connection under *Flast* was not satisfied.
- Concurring opinions agreed the case should be resolved without expanding *Flast*; one concurrence would have overruled *Flast* entirely.
- The dissent would have found standing because the expenditures were funded by congressional appropriations and allegedly used to support religion.

## Legal Principles

- Federal taxpayer status generally does not constitute a concrete and particularized injury sufficient for Article III standing.
- *Flast v. Cohen* provides a limited taxpayer-standing exception only when a plaintiff challenges a specific congressional exercise of the taxing and spending power and alleges violation of a specific constitutional limitation on that power, including the Establishment Clause.
- *Flast* does not extend to Establishment Clause challenges aimed at discretionary Executive Branch spending funded by general appropriations absent a specific congressional spending enactment authorizing the alleged unconstitutional activity.
- Standing limits serve separation-of-powers functions by preventing federal courts from supervising generalized grievances about government spending.

## Conclusion

The Court held that federal taxpayers could not sue under the Establishment Clause to challenge conferences conducted by Executive Branch faith-based offices when the activities were financed through general appropriations and not tied to a specific congressional taxing-and-spending enactment; *Flast* remained intact but confined.


Hein v. Freedom From Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587 (2007)