Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., 551 U.S. 587 (2007)

In Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., the underlying dispute arose from the establishment of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives by President George W. Bush in 2001. The office aimed to provide private and charitable community groups, including religious organizations, with equal opportunities to compete for federal assistance while adhering to principles of pluralism and nondiscrimination. The plaintiffs, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, argued that conferences held as part of this initiative violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment due to the use of religious imagery in speeches by President Bush and former Secretary of Education Paige, which they claimed endorsed faith-based programs for delivering social services. The procedural history of the case began when the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit asserting that they had standing to challenge the actions of the federal government based on their status as taxpayers. They contended that the conferences were funded by federal appropriations, thus giving them the right to sue under the precedent set by Flast v. Cohen, which allowed taxpayer standing in cases involving Establishment Clause claims. However, the Supreme Court ultimately reviewed the case after the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them standing. The relevant background context includes the long-standing legal principle that mere payment of taxes does not typically confer standing to challenge government expenditures. The Supreme Court's decision in this case hinged on whether the funding for the conferences was specifically authorized by Congress for the purpose of the challenged actions. The Court concluded that since the funding came from general Executive Branch appropriations and not from a specific congressional authorization, the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring their claim, leading to the reversal of the appellate court's decision.

Whether federal taxpayers have standing to challenge the use of federal funds for programs that allegedly violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment when those funds are not specifically authorized by Congress for that purpose.

The judgment is reversed.