Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation

Supreme Court of the United States · 2007 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawArticle III StandingTaxpayer StandingEstablishment ClauseArticle IIIstandingtaxpayer standingEstablishment Clause

Facts

President Bush created the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and related Executive Department Centers by executive order, not by specific congressional legislation. Their activities, including the challenged conferences and speeches, were funded through general Executive Branch appropriations rather than any statute specifically authorizing or appropriating funds for those conferences. Respondents alleged that the conferences promoted religion and favored religious groups over secular ones. Their only asserted basis for standing was that the individual respondents were federal taxpayers opposed to the use of congressional appropriations to advance religion.

Issue

Do federal taxpayers have Article III standing under Flast v. Cohen to challenge Executive Branch conferences and speeches alleged to violate the Establishment Clause when those activities are funded only through general Executive Branch appropriations and not by any specific congressional enactment authorizing or mandating the challenged expenditures?

Rule

As a general rule, federal taxpayers lack Article III standing to challenge federal expenditures because their interest in Treasury funds is too generalized and attenuated. Flast creates only a narrow exception: an Establishment Clause plaintiff must challenge a specific exercise of Congress's taxing and spending power, showing a logical link between taxpayer status and the legislative enactment attacked, and a nexus between taxpayer status and a specific constitutional limitation on that taxing and spending power. That exception does not extend to discretionary Executive Branch expenditures financed by general appropriations and not expressly authorized or mandated by a specific congressional enactment.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The President creates, by executive order, a new outreach office within the Department of Labor in Washington, D.C. Using money from the department's general salaries-and-expenses appropriation, the office holds regional events in Phoenix and Atlanta where officials praise religious ministries as uniquely effective partners in serving the poor. Nina Flores and Omar Reed sue solely as federal taxpayers, alleging an Establishment Clause violation.

Do Nina and Omar have Article III standing as federal taxpayers?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, federal taxpayer standing is generally barred because the asserted injury is too generalized. Flast is a narrow exception limited to challenges directed at a specific exercise of Congress's taxing and spending power. Where the challenged conduct is discretionary executive activity funded from lump-sum general appropriations, and no specific statute authorizes or mandates the spending at issue, there is no taxpayer standing.