|
I am pleased to bring you great news about two decisions just handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States!
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (No. 06-969)
McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life (No. 06-970)
Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation (U.S. No. 06-157)
Date: 6/25/2007 3:37:21 PM ( 17 y ) ... viewed 3019 times The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which specializes in constitutional law, praised today’s Supreme Court’s decision turning away church-state separationists’ federal lawsuit challenging the use of taxpayer dollars to fund a program of President Bush's faith-based initiative. The Court ruled that the separationists had no legal standing to bring the suit.
The Supreme Court vote was 5-4 in the case of Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation (U.S. No. 06-157). The ACLJ filed an amicus brief with the high court in support of the federal government’s position which prevailed today.
“This is a very significant victory that sends a powerful message that atheists and others antagonistic to religion do not get an automatic free pass to bring Establishment Clause lawsuits,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “The Supreme Court got it right in determining that the plaintiffs who challenged the President’s faith-based initiative had no legal standing to do so. This decision will have serious ramifications for separationist attempts to claim special privileges to sue as taxpayers without showing that a law or government activity actually injured them in any way. This is an important victory for the judicial system and for the President’s faith-based initiative. By rejecting a claim to special treatment for atheists and other separationists, the high court took an important step toward restoring equity to the legal system with respect to federal challenges in the Establishment Clause arena.”
In the Hein case, separationist taxpayers challenged a federal faith-based initiatives program. The federal district court in Wisconsin dismissed the case, ruling that taxpayers had no “standing” -- capacity to sue -- because there was no federal grant at issue. But a federal appeals court reinstated the suit ruling that the separationists had standing to challenge the use of federal funds to run the challenged program. The federal government appealed to the Supreme Court.
In its friend-of-the-court brief in support of the federal government, the ACLJ points out that no federal taxpayer suits are allowed in any other context aside from Establishment Clause suits challenging federal spending. That exception, the ACLJ brief notes, rests on the 1968 decision of Flast v. Cohen. Subsequent to Flast, however, the Supreme Court has refused to expand Flast and has rejected each and every argument the Court made in support of the Flast decision. Today’s decision continues the trend to rebuff efforts to build upon the questionable Flast precedent.
You can read the ACLJ amicus brief here.
You can read the Supreme Court decision here.
Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice specializes in constitutional law and focuses on religious liberty litigation. The ACLJ is based in Washington, D.C.
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), specializing in constitutional law, said today it is pleased the Supreme Court loosened restrictions saying a pro-life group should have been permitted to air advertising in the final months leading up to a 2004 election. The high court issued its decision today in the consolidated cases of FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (No. 06-969) and McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life (No. 06-970).
The ACLJ filed an amicus brief with the high court on behalf of itself and Focus on the Family, a non-profit religious corporation committed to strengthening the family.
“This decision represents a severe blow to a campaign finance provision that amounts to nothing more than censorship,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “While the Supreme Court fell short of the votes necessary to overturn a disturbing provision in the McCain-Feingold law that puts limits on issue advertising in the weeks and months leading up to elections – the high court made an important acknowledgement – the pro-life speech in this case was wrongfully censored. This decision opens the door to further challenges of these free speech restrictions and represents a First Amendment victory for those who want to express their views on issues that matter most prior to an election.”
In its brief, the ACLJ urged the high court to remove the prohibition of grassroots lobbying organizations from taking part in issue advertising 30-days before a primary election and 60-days before a general election.
The brief asserts: “Because the business of governing continues, the business of the People, that is, the business of giving instructions to their elected representatives continues. And, likewise, the business of seeking redress of grievances continues. When Congress enacted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, it acted in derogation of these facts and to the detriment of the right of the people to petition for a redress of grievances through the use of genuine issue advertisements by grassroots lobbying organizations. The right to petition is fundamental, and warrants this Court’s close guardianship.”
You can read the Supreme Court decision here.
Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice specializes in constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C.
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites! Print this page
Email this page
 Alert Webmaster
|
