U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Separation of Church and State Case

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in the first separation of church and state case the court has faced under Chief Justice John Roberts. The issue at hand is whether or not an individual has the right to sue the government over President Bush's Office Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

The office was established in 2001 by President Bush in order, as he said, to level the playing field between religious-based and secular groups vying for grants. The Freedom From Religion Foundation, based in Wisconsin, sued in 2004, saying conferences, designed to show religious organizations how to apply for government grants, favored religious groups over their secular counterparts.

A lower court initially ruled the Freedom From Religion Foundation lacked standing by not meeting the Flast test, because it involved the executive branch, and not Congress. The Fast test is so named because of a 1968 case in front of the Supreme Court. In that case - Flast v. Cohen - the court ruled that while a taxpayer may not sue the government unless the individual is able to prove he or she has suffered monetary damages, unless Congress has violated the Establishment Clause.

The lower court's ruling, however, was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. After this ruling, the Bush administration appealed. Wednesday's arguments were about whether or not the case could actually presented in front of the Court.

During the hour-long argument, the justices peppered the attorneys for the administration and for the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Chief Justice Roberts made clear his opinion that the group's suit should be thrown out. If individuals can sue the government whenever God is mentioned, why couldn't someone "sue our marshal for standing up and saying, 'God save the United States and this honorable court'?" asked Roberts.

Antonin Scalia agreed. He appeared worried that an individual could sue the president whenever tax dollars were spent on an airplane flight for the president to speak in front of a religious group. "The whole trip is about religion," he said, but added that he felt "it really doesn't make any sense" to permit those type of lawsuits.

Justice Breyer, on the other hand, felt lawsuits to be necessary in enforcing a separation between church and state. "People become terribly upset when they see some other religion getting the money from the state," he complained.

Sources:

www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01scotus.html
www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4591383.html
www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus1mar01,1,1982517.story