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
- 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.
- 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.