Not a Winn-Win: Misconstruing Standing and the Establishment Clause

The Supreme Court held in Arizona Christan School Tuition Organization v. Winn that though taxpayers might have standing to contest legislative appropriations designed to aid religious enterprises as in Flast, they have no standing to challenge legislative tax credit programs intended for the same p...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Supreme Court review 2012-01, Vol.2011 (1), p.215-252
Main Authors: Marshall, William P., Nichol, Gene R.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Church & state
Constitutional law
First Amendment-US
Freedom of religion
Supreme Court decisions
Tax credits
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The Supreme Court held in Arizona Christan School Tuition Organization v. Winn that though taxpayers might have standing to contest legislative appropriations designed to aid religious enterprises as in Flast, they have no standing to challenge legislative tax credit programs intended for the same purpose. Marshall and Nichol explore Winn and its implications for the judicial enforcement of the Establishment Clause and argue that the intangible, "psychic" harms that Winn implicitly rejects as a basis for standing are central to the core purposes of the Establishment Clause. By suggesting that such interests are noncognizable claims, Winn undercuts not only taxpayer standing but much that has been thought to underlie Establishment Clause jurisprudence itself.
ISSN:0081-9557
2158-2459
DOI:10.1086/664704