Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Court Reform And Breathing Space Under The Establishment Clause, Mark C. Rahdert
Court Reform And Breathing Space Under The Establishment Clause, Mark C. Rahdert
Chicago-Kent Law Review
Flast v. Cohen held that federal taxpayers have standing to challenge government spending for religion. While Frothingham v. Mellon generally prohibits taxpayer standing in federal courts, the Court reasoned that the Establishment Clause specifically prohibits taxation in any amount to fund unconstitutional religious spending. For several decades Flast has been settled law that supplied jurisdiction in many leading establishment cases. But Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. and Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn signal that Flast may soon be overruled. This jurisdictional ferment raises two questions: Why this sudden shift? And what does it signify for the …
The Constitutional Politics Of The Establishment Clause, Richard Albert
The Constitutional Politics Of The Establishment Clause, Richard Albert
Chicago-Kent Law Review
In these reflections presented at a Symposium hosted by Duquesne University School of Law on "The Future of the Establishment Clause in Context: Neutrality, Religion, or Avoidance?" I examine the constitutional politics driving the interpretation of the Establishment Clause. I suggest that the Supreme Court's recent case law on taxpayer standing may signal a return to the founding design of the Establishment Clause. At the founding, the Establishment Clause constrained the actions of only the national government, disabled only Congress from establishing a religion, and vigorously protected the sovereignty of states. Each of these three signposts—national interdiction, congressional disability, and …
Standing Still - Did The Roberts Court Narrow, But Not Overrule, Flast To Allow Time To Re-Think Establishment Clause Jurisprudence?, Douglas W. Kmiec
Standing Still - Did The Roberts Court Narrow, But Not Overrule, Flast To Allow Time To Re-Think Establishment Clause Jurisprudence?, Douglas W. Kmiec
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Congress Giveth, And The Courts Taketh Away: Is Restitutionary Recoupment Of Federal Funds A Proper Remedy When Taxpayers Allege That An Expired Statute Violated The Establishment Clause?, Kendra Williams
Pepperdine Law Review
The Seventh Circuit recently held in Laskowski v. Spellings that grantees of government funding can be forced by taxpayers to give grant money back to the federal government when the grant has allegedly violated the Establishment Clause - even when the grant statute expired years ago, the funds have long since been spent, and the government does not want the money back. Laskowski's new remedy has the potential for widely impacting Establishment Clause jurisprudence, especially in the areas of government funding for sectarian schools and other religiously-affiliated groups. The ready availability of a recoupment remedy could also have far-reaching and …