<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16414" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><A href="http://www.nytimes.com/"><IMG alt="The New York Times" hspace=0
src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif" align=left
border=0></A> <!-- ADXINFO classification="button" campaign="foxsearch2007-emailtools01d-nyt5-511276"-->
<TABLE style="MARGIN-TOP: 3px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 3px" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0
width="80%" border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=bottom>
<TD>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 2px">
<DIV align=right><IMG height=1 alt=""
src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/spacer.gif" width=1 border=0><A
href="http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&camp=foxsearch2007-emailtools01d-nyt5-511276&ad=namesake_88x31.gif&goto=http://www.foxsearchlight.com/thenamesake/"
target=_blank><IMG height=24 alt="Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By"
src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/fox/printerfriendly.gif" width=106
border=0><IMG height=31 alt=""
src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/fox/namesake/namesake_88x31.gif"
width=88 border=0></A><BR></DIV></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR clear=all>
<HR align=left SIZE=1>
<DIV class=timestamp>February 28, 2007</DIV>
<DIV class=kicker><NYT_KICKER>Editorial</NYT_KICKER></DIV>
<H1><NYT_HEADLINE type=" " version="1.0">Government by Law, Not Faith
</NYT_HEADLINE></H1><NYT_BYLINE type=" "
version="1.0"></NYT_BYLINE><NYT_TEXT></NYT_TEXT>
<DIV id=articleBody>
<P>The Supreme Court hears arguments today in a case that could have a broad
impact on whether the courthouse door remains open to ordinary Americans who
believe that the government is undermining the separation of church and
state.</P>
<P>The question before the court is whether a group seeking to preserve the
separation of church and state can mount a First Amendment challenge to the Bush
administration’s “faith based” initiatives. The arguments turn on a technical
question of whether taxpayers have standing, or the right to initiate this kind
of suit, but the real-world implications are serious. If the court rules that
the group does not have standing, it will be much harder to stop government from
giving unconstitutional aid to religion.</P>
<P>Soon after taking office, President Bush established the White House Office
of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, and faith-based offices in departments
like Justice and Education. They were intended to increase the federal grant
money going to religious organizations, and they seem to have been highly
effective. The plaintiffs cited figures showing that from 2003 to 2005, the
number of federal grants to religious groups increased 38 percent. The Freedom
>From Religion Foundation and several of its members sued. They say that because
the faith-based initiatives favor religious applicants for grants over secular
applicants, they violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which
prohibits government support for religion. </P>
<P>These are profound issues, but because the administration challenged the
right of the foundation and its members to sue, the courts must decide whether
the plaintiffs have the right to sue in this case before they can consider the
constitutionality of the faith-based programs. An appeals court has ruled,
correctly, that the plaintiffs have standing.</P>
<P>In many cases, taxpayers are not in fact allowed to sue to challenge
government actions, but the Supreme Court has long held that they have standing
to allege violations of the Establishment Clause. Without this sort of broad
standing, many entanglements between church and state would never make it to
court.</P>
<P>The Bush administration is pushing an incorrect view of standing as it tries
to stop the courts from reaching the First Amendment issue. Taxpayers can
challenge the financing of religious activity, the administration claims, only
when a Congressional statute expressly authorizes the spending. There is no
statute behind the faith-based initiative.</P>
<P>In his decision for the appeals court, Judge Richard Posner of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, convincingly
explained why this argument is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s precedents
on the Establishment Clause.</P>
<P>Procedural issues like standing can have an enormous impact on the
administration of justice if they close the courthouse door on people with valid
legal claims. The Supreme Court has made it clear that taxpayers may challenge
government assistance to religion. The justices should affirm Judge Posner’s
ruling so the courts can move on to the important question: Do the Bush
administration’s faith-based policies violate the
Constitution?</P></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>