WASHINGTON — In a closely watched church-state separation case, a Bush administration lawyer urged the Supreme Court on Wednesday to shield the president's "faith-based initiative" from legal challenges in court.
U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement said taxpayers who believe the White House is unconstitutionally promoting religion should not be accorded legal standing to sue in court. It would be too "intrusive on the executive branch" to permit lawsuits contesting how the president and his advisors conduct their affairs, he said.
For The Record
Los Angeles Times Wednesday June 27, 2007 Home Edition Main News Part A Page 2 National Desk 2 inches; 78 words Type of Material: Correction
Supreme Court: An article in Tuesday's Section A about the court's decision on challenges to corporate-funded political ads and President Bush's faith-based initiative quoted the 1st Amendment as saying, in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of religion." The amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech."
The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation sued in 2004 to challenge the faith-based initiative on 1st Amendment grounds. The group said the White House officials were using public money to help church-based groups win grants and contracts.
It is the first major religion case to come before the high court since President Bush's two appointees took their seats. In their questions Wednesday, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. sounded as though they sided with the administration.
Overall, the nine justices seemed split during the hourlong argument. If they adopt the administration's view, the ruling could make it harder for critics to sue officials who use public money in ways that support religion. If the justices rule in favor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the group would still have to prove its case in court.
Roberts made it clear that he thought the group's claims should be thrown out of court. If taxpayers can sue the government whenever an official invokes God or religion, why couldn't anyone "sue our marshal for standing up and saying, 'God save the United States and this honorable court'?" asked Roberts, citing the invocation the justices hear when entering the courtroom.
Justice Antonin Scalia appeared to agree. Otherwise, he said, taxpayers could sue the president for having spent tax money to promote religion simply because he flew across the country to give a speech to a religious group. "The whole trip is about religion," Scalia said, but he added that "it really doesn't make any sense" to permit lawsuits challenging this spending.
Taking up the opposite view, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said courts and lawsuits are needed to enforce the separation of church and state. "People become terribly upset when they see some other religion getting the money from the state" to subsidize their faith, he said.
