Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 2007 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFederal CourtsStandingTaxpayer StandingEstablishment ClauseArticle III standingtaxpayer standingEstablishment Clause

Facts

The President created the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and related centers in executive departments by executive order. Congress did not specifically authorize these entities or specifically appropriate money for the challenged conferences and speeches; instead, the activities were funded through general Executive Branch appropriations. Respondents, an organization opposed to government endorsement of religion and three of its members, alleged that conferences and speeches by executive officials promoted religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. Their only asserted basis for standing was that the individual respondents were federal taxpayers opposed to the use of congressional tax appropriations to advance religion.

Issue

Whether federal taxpayers have Article III standing under Flast v. Cohen to challenge Executive Branch conferences and speeches alleged to violate the Establishment Clause when the activities are funded only through general Executive Branch appropriations and not pursuant to any specific congressional mandate or appropriation.

Rule

As a general rule, federal taxpayer status does not confer Article III standing to challenge federal expenditures. Flast creates only a narrow exception: a taxpayer asserting an Establishment Clause claim must challenge a specific exercise of Congress's taxing and spending power, meaning expenditures expressly authorized or mandated by a specific congressional enactment; that exception does not extend to discretionary Executive Branch expenditures funded by general appropriations.

🔒

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.

Congress passes the Community Partnerships Act, which expressly appropriates $40 million for grants to private after-school programs and specifically directs that eligible recipients may include houses of worship that provide mentoring services. Nina Park, a federal taxpayer in Seattle, sues in federal court alleging the Act violates the Establishment Clause.

Does Nina most likely have federal taxpayer standing?

Explanation. Yes. The majority reaffirmed that Flast remains a narrow exception allowing taxpayer standing where the plaintiff challenges a specific congressional enactment exercising the taxing and spending power and alleges violation of a specific constitutional limitation such as the Establishment Clause. An express appropriation and statutory authorization satisfy the required logical link to congressional action. (Derived from Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. (2007).)