{"id":2158,"date":"2011-04-05T19:24:53","date_gmt":"2011-04-05T23:24:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/?p=2158"},"modified":"2016-11-17T08:14:33","modified_gmt":"2016-11-17T13:14:33","slug":"supreme-ct-puts-another-nail-in-taxpayer-standing-coffin-supporting-states-indirect-subsidization-of-religion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/supreme-ct-puts-another-nail-in-taxpayer-standing-coffin-supporting-states-indirect-subsidization-of-religion\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Ct Puts Another Nail in &quot;Taxpayer Standing&quot; Coffin, Supporting State&#039;s Indirect Subsidization of Religion"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Yesterday, in its decision in A<em>Z Christian School Tuition Org.v. Winn<\/em>, the Supreme Court further limited the ability of private taxpayers to challenge government programs in court.\u00a0 The Court rejected taxpayers&#8217; right to challenge an Arizona program that gives a dollar-for-dollar state tax credit to those who contribute to non-profits that provide scholarships to private (and primarily parochial) school students.<\/p>\n<p>From <a title=\"scotusblog\" href=\"http:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/2011\/04\/opinion-recap-the-near-end-of-taxpayer-standing\/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog<\/a>:\u00a0 &#8220;The key to the Court majority\u2019s opinion, written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, is that there is a clear-cut distinction between taxpayer lawsuits that challenge direct government spending to aid religion (still allowed, apparently, but perhaps only in the narrowest way), and lawsuits that challenge the use of a tax credit as an indirect way of channeling government tax revenues into parochial education (possibly, no longer allowed).&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor joined Justice Kagan\u00a0in her dissent.<\/p>\n<p><a title=\"scotusblog\" href=\"http:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/2011\/04\/opinion-recap-the-near-end-of-taxpayer-standing\/\" target=\"_blank\">Read the full SCOTUSblog post.<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Yesterday, in its decision in AZ Christian School Tuition Org.v. Winn, the Supreme Court further limited the ability of private [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":true,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[3,44,48],"tags":[78,126,127,153,864],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-2158","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-amicus","category-courts","category-freedom-of-expression","tag-arizona","tag-civil-liberties","tag-civil-rights","tag-courts","tag-first-amendment"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZrWS-yO","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2158","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/14"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2158"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2158\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2158"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2158"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2158"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=2158"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}