Hein Vs. FFRF Decision Prohibits Taxpayers to Have Their Word in Court

On June 25, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) had disappointing news to report. According to a FFRF press release, in Hein vs. FFRF, the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision gave the executive branch the ability to violate the separation of church and state.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is the largest organization of atheists and agnostics in the United States, and the purpose of the organization is to maintain separation of church and state.

In 2004, the FFRF brought forth suit due to the creation of Federal offices that were faith-based, and due to government preference for faith-based or religious organizations over non-religious ones. Specifically, according to the press release by FFRF: "The suit challenged an internal "faith-based" bureaucracy within the federal government, which exists to promote faith-based funding, shows preference to funding religious over nonreligious groups, and holds conferences for faith-based groups, which has cost taxpayers multimillions, if not billions, of tax dollars."

However, the Supreme Court did uphold Flast v. Cohen (1968), the ruling that allows taxpayers the right to confront unconstitutional acts of Congress to endorse religion. But, the ruling in Hein vs. FFRF limits the Flast vs. Cohen ruling. Dan Barker, a plaintiff and Foundation co-president, said "Today's unjust decision doesn't even allow us into a courtroom to plead our case. But not overturning Flast v. Cohen is the silver lining." He noted that in the outcome of Hein vs. FFRF, "This means we have a constitutional separation between church and state, but no way to enforce it if the executive branch chooses to violate it with 'discretionary' actions."

Annie Laurie Gaylor, the other Foundation co-president and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said of the ruling, "Had Justice O'Connor remained on the court, as she was when we filed this lawsuit, we are confident this would have been a 5-4 decision in our favor. Kennedy has become a swing vote to overturn well-established precedent."