Obama Administration Backs Religious School Aid, Opposes Right To Sue

[Better Believe It]

Obama Administration Backs Religious School Aid, Opposes Right To Sue
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
November 2010 People & Events

In a move that stunned advocates of church-state separation and public education, the Obama administration last month filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing in favor of a controversial Arizona program that diverts tax dollars to religious and other private schools.

The Arizona scheme allows taxpayers to make contributions to private voucher organizations that in turn pay for tuition at private schools. The donors then take a 100 percent tax credit for the donation. Critics call the set-up a backdoor voucher plan.

In a legal brief filed with the high court, the U.S. Justice Department not only asserts that the plan is constitutional, but also argues that taxpayers should not have “standing” – the legal right to sue – to challenge it in court.

Furthermore, the Solicitor General’s Office requested and was granted the right to argue in favor of the program during Nov. 3 oral arguments.

The case, Arizona Christian School Organization v. Winn, was brought by taxpayers who argue that the bulk of the money under the program flows to religious schools, thus violating church-state separation.

http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2010/11/obama-administration-backs.html


--------------------------------------------


PRESS RELEASE
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
November 2, 2010

Taxpayers Should Have Right To Challenge Aid To Religious Schools, AU Tells High Court

The right of taxpayers to challenge public funding of religious education must be preserved, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has told the U.S. Supreme Court.

The high court tomorrow will hear Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, a case that challenges an Arizona scheme that allows taxpayers to take a 100 percent credit for donations to school tuition organizations that fund religious and other private schools.

Under the controversial program, nearly 92 percent of the funds collected have gone for tuition at religious schools. The set-up is being challenged as a violation of church-state separation, but the case also raises issues of “standing” – the right to sue.

“Americans must have the right to go to court when tax money is diverted to religion,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “Now, some groups want to slam the courthouse door in our faces.”

The Arizona program is supported by TV preacher Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice, Jerry Falwell Jr.’s Liberty Counsel, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Christian Legal Society and an array of other pro-voucher organizations like the Institute for Justice.

The religious school subsidy is also backed by the Solicitor General’s Office at the U.S. Department of Justice.

Lynn said he was disappointed to see the Obama administration side with right-wing groups in this case. Not only did the Justice Department argue in favor of the Arizona funding scheme, it advocated denying taxpayers’ right to challenge the plan in court. Furthermore, the Solicitor General’s Office requested and was granted 10 minutes to argue in favor of the plan during oral argument before the justices.

“It’s a shame that the Obama administration has taken the wrong side in this case,” Lynn said. “The Arizona scheme diverts scarce tax dollars to religious schools. There is no reason in the world for the administration to support something like that.

“I am even more disappointed that the Justice Department wants to block taxpayers from challenging schemes like this,” Lynn continued. “Conservatives on the Supreme Court have been whittling away at Americans’ right to challenge aid to religion. Now the Obama administration is encouraging them to go even further. It’s inexplicable.”

AU’s brief, filed Sept. 22 in conjunction with the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty and The Interfaith Alliance Foundation, urges the high court to protect taxpayers’ rights to seek redress in court.

Tax credit plans, the brief asserts, must be subject to proper oversight through taxpayer lawsuits, since they are often open to abuse.

“If anything, contemporary fiscal politics suggest that the support of religion through tax credits is even more prone to abuse than is religious support through cash grants,” asserts the brief. “Like most tax cuts, tax expenditures ‘are subjected to considerably less congressional and popular scrutiny than are direct appropriations.’”

The AU brief was drafted by Americans United Legal Director Ayesha N. Khan along with attorneys Kurt Wimmer, Gregory M. Lipper, Charles Kitcher and Sarah M. Powell of Covington & Burling, LLP in Washington, D.C.

Since 1997, the Arizona program has diverted $349 million in public funds to private schools, with the vast majority of the money going to religious schools.

The program has been plagued with problems. For example, the plan allows parents to earmark donations for specific children. Since the law specifically bars parents from donating to pay for their own child’s tuition, some parents have donated for a friend’s child and vice-versa.

In 2009, two Arizona newspapers reported that much of the largess was going to well-off families – even though the program was pitched as a way to help poor and minority students.

According to the Arizona Republic, two out of every three scholarships in 2007 went to middle- and upper-class students who would have already been able to attend private schools without the tax-credit aid.

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2010/10/taxpayers-should-have-the.html

[mediaman007]

1. WTF?

[SunsetDreams]

30. Initially I had that reaction to, but went to SCOTUS Blog on this

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/arizona-christian-school-tuition-organization-v-winn-garriott-v-winn/

The SCOTUS Blog has multiple links with information on the case, and there is also podcasts on there where you can actually listen to the arguments.

Very interesting to see how this plays out. It looks like it's coming down to Kennedy and Kagan. Even Chief Justice Roberts aired on the side of caution.(but who can trust him)

The fact of the matter is, the Government will argue this way, because there has never been precedent for a taxpayer to have standing to sue the Government on how they spend revenue.

Analysis here:

Analysis
The Court has several times hinted that state taxpayers have “standing” to bring lawsuits based solely on their status as taxpayers, but it has never explicitly ruled that they do. This will be the first challenge for the Court as it confronts the Arizona program, partly because that is a question of jurisdiction; if there is no one with “standing” to sue, there is no case, constitutionally. But that also will be the first challenge because the Court has been growing increasingly skeptical of “standing” doctrine, edging steadily toward reducing the options to sue in federal court.

The Court’s Hein decision suggested strongly that a majority of the Court may be, in fact, deeply skeptical of taxpayer “standing” when public programs that aid religious organizations are being challenged. That leaning may well have increased with the growing conservatism of the current majority on the Court.

If the Court, in examining the merits of the Arizona program, were to find itself deeply divided, then the “standing” question would loom as a strong alternative, denying that status to state taxpayers and thus ending the case without a decision on the constitutional question. The merits question is not an easy one because, for all of the attempt to fit the Arizona program precisely into the parameters of the Cleveland program in Zelman, there are distinct differences, at least in emphasis.

The challengers have made strenuous effort to cast the program as one that involves government spending — period. That may be something of an exaggeration, but it is not entirely implausible. On the other hand, the defenders of the program have insisted that the program is nothing more than a scheme of private choice piled on private choice. Those are stark alternatives, and choosing either would be a definite way to decide the merits, but the Justices may well not see the alternatives as vividly as the advocates do.{/div}

http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=107597

[Blasphemer]

36. Very interesting

Constitutional questions such as these are very intriguing, especially as it may directly impact governance. I just wish we had a SCOTUS who we could trust to make a decision that is consistent and legally sound.

[SunsetDreams]

38. I know I will be watching this case,

It's always interesting to hear the arguments, when there hasn't been precedence set. I too, wish we had a SCOTUS we could trust, that 5-4 makeup doesn't make me comfortable at all. Honestly, after reading all that, I think it is Kennedy who we most need to watch. He could make it or break it.

[and-justice-for-all]

2. Marching closer to theocracy every bloody day...nt

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[marmar]

3. Sigh.

Kudos to Americans United for its work.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. Why is he doing this? WHY?

[Catshrink]

5. I thought Obama was a Professor of Constitutional Law

This is really robbing Arizona public school children of much needed funds. With the neoLibertarian Legislature with Russell Pearce as Emperor of Arizona, it will get much worse. He plans to slash spending to beyond the bone - and he's determined to kill public education. Although he supports tuition tax credits for private schools, he wants to elimate school tax credits for public schools (up to $200/individual can be donated to schools for sports, arts, and other programs). He's a bonafide asshole.

Pearce on school choice:

EDUCATION/SCHOOL CHOICE: We have state departments of education that are closer to the people. So that each state will have more resources that are going to the classroom, not Washington DC, we should pursue a more efficient path and eliminate the Department of Education, besides there is not Constitutional provision for the federal government to be involved in education, it is a local issue. In addition, all parents should have a choice of where to send their children to school, not just the wealthy (like those in Congress who send their kids to private/parochial schools but oppose school choice for those who are not wealthy). School choice needs to be there for all parents.

http://www.mesa18.com/candidates/russell_pearce.htm

wikipedia:

In April 2008, Pearce sponsored a measure, Senate Bill 1108, that would prohibit students of Arizona universities and community colleges from forming groups based in whole or part on the race of their membership. Pearce said he didn't want students indoctrinated with seditious or anti-American teachings. The bill would ban groups that serve minority interests such as the Mexican American study program and the Black Business Students Association.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Pearce

[CaliforniaPeggy]

8. I thought he was a Prof of Constitutional law too...

Maybe he was, once.

[jberryhill]

21. Okay, so explain how a tax credit for a donation to a non-profit is unconstitutional

You do understand that, for your entire lifetime, donations to religious organizations have been tax deductible, yes?

Explain how that changes if there is a tax credit for a donation to one which runs an educational institution.

How were you justifying the tax deductions for donations to religious non-profits for all of these years?

Or have you suddenly decided that is unconstitutional?

[Catshrink]

31. These aren't donations to religious institutions

they are thinly veiled tuition payments to religious schools. Tuition payments to religious schools are not deductible and shouldn't be - that amounts to public money being used to promote religion.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

33. Thank you for answering this question.

I appreciate your going to bat for me.

[jberryhill]

34. That does not answer the question

I asked you why you think a tax deduction for religious donation is deductible.

That is tax revenue that would otherwise be collected but for it having been donated directly to promote religion.

You have not established a constitutional distinction between that and allowing a tax credit for tuition paid to a religious school.

If I donate a dollar to Our Lady of Perpetual Poutrage, and get a 30 cent tax deduction, how is that not 30 cents of what would otherwise be public money going to promote religion?

Please answer that question.

[Catshrink]

35. I don't think they should be deductible.

Don't think I ever said that.

[jberryhill]

40. That's a fine opinion, but misses the point

Have you ever gotten up in arms over the fact that religious donations are deductible, before reading this article?

Saying they "shouldn't be deductible" in the face of decades of them having been, makes me wonder whether there is a constitutional issue here at all.

[displacedvermoter]

45. Our Lady of Perpetual Poutrage!!!

You must work for TBS, very funny!!!

What a great way to get your point across to all of us haters and whiners!

[cornermouse]

56. I never took tax deductions for tithes to the church.

It sort of undercuts the reason you give to a church and turns it into a money-changer in the temple thing. I would consider money/vouchers to a church backed school another money-changer in the temple thing.

[PurityOfEssence]

54. Do you not understand the difference between a deduction and a credit?

Monies an individual gives to a religious organization can be used as a deduction, which lessens his/her taxable income. That's MUCH LESS of an advantage than a credit. A Tax Credit is a 100% subtraction from your tax bill.

This is use of public money to fund private religious schools, whose resultant monetary advantage directly hurts public education in that particular community. If it was a DEDUCTION, it would be far less appealing to people than a credit, and it wouldn't affect the public revenue anywhere near as much.

I'm not so pleased that religious donations are deductions, but since there's well established precedent, at least secular organizations with 501 c3 status are allowed to benefit as well. So be it, but using this grey area as justification for a much more direct diversion of funds to religion is precisely the slippery slope that needs to be decried with dispatch.

Taxes are a billing for services rendered, and they are collected by the provider of the services. When a direct diversion of billing goes to religion, then we are establishing religion. We are literally saying by a credit system that the religion in question is the equivalent of government. Go ahead pay either us or them; it's all the same.

Religion is kept out of our government for one very simple reason: it is an evocation of aristocracy; those of the belief are superior to others, and that flies in the face of pluralism. Couple this with the starchy demand that religions have for their word to be above question, and the very mechanism of debate and justification that define democracy are swept aside. We heathens have to justify our actions, whereas the superiors of the way simply have to say what they please and their opinion is not to be questioned. This is why Article One keeps religion out of our government.

Please don't use prior perpetration as justification for much worse; it's like those who claim that the unconstitutional abuse of "In God We Trust" on our coinage is proof of our national godliness.

[Ter]

51. He supports the Patriot Act and opposed McDonald vs. Chicago

He doesn't have a clue about what's Constitutional or not.

[dgibby]

6. When in doubt,

follow the money.

[TheWraith]

10. Relax. The ACLU is engaging in more than a little hyperbole.

The Solicitor General filed a legal brief in support of it being legal for a STATE to give tax breaks to certain people who choose to pay for private schools instead of public ones. That's a far cry from the impression the headline gives.

[progressoid]

14. The ACLU??

Reverend Lynn is from Americans United for Separation of Church and State .

[Jakes Progress]

26. Centrists use the ACLU as a blanket condemnation.

Just like the right wing.

[ibegurpard]

32. whoops...guess he got his ultra left-wing whipping boys mixed up

[donco6]

58. They all look the same to TheWraith. n/t

[CaliforniaPeggy]

15. I thank you.

Whew...

[PVnRT]

46. Uhhh....

Are you arguing that it's OK for a state to violate the wall of separation? And if the administration does not support this kind of thing, why would the Solicitor General be involved at all here?

[dhill926]

7. I really don't get this..........

[treestar]

17. this is probably true

And the article is not going to explain very well.

[msongs]

9. rick warren, donnie mcclurkin....is this another piece of the puzzle? nt

[ProSense]

11. Yes,

Obama is a threat to the United States.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. Well McClurkin is no laughing matter. He has used the most

horrible sorts of language about GLBT people, declaring war on us for 'trying to kill children' and that sort of pure evil slander. Recent events have shown the deadly toll that hate speech and slanders take on actual human beings. Obama knew all of that when he employed his raft of professional haters. He picked the worst of the worst, and he did so with intention.

[Dinger]

12. Yeah, Dig That Hole A Little Deeper (nt)

[progressoid]

13. He's the most liberal President ever!11!

[ProSense]

16. Governing

the most ignorant electorate ever. We live in interesting times.

[tledford]

18. Your definition of the word "interesting" must be truly bizarre. eom

[ProSense]

19. Actually,

watching the people who hate the President is bizarre. The times are interesting.

[progressoid]

24. I assume you are implying I hate the President.

Sorry to disappoint - I don't.

I took a lot of time off from work and family to volunteer for him and will do so again for 2012. That doesn't mean I will hold back criticism.

Regardleess, my comment about being "the most liberal President" was more about those on the right that fear him for being so liberal while many of us on the left find that statement rather humerus.

[ProSense]

27. No,

I wasn't. The statement was about people who actually hate the President.

[Jakes Progress]

42. Links?

[Jakes Progress]

28. More than tiring.

So people who disagrees with blurring the lines of church and state now "hate the president". You've been playing this kind of tired old game for two years. How's that working for you?

Say PS. Has anything the president has done ever disappointed you? Is there anything you find important enough to your core beliefs that the president could make you angry over? I've never seen anything yet. But if he did and you said something about it, would that mean that you "hate the president".

This relentless boosterism and single-minded behavior is not an effective way to add to the discussion or move the party forward.

[displacedvermoter]

44. I ask that so I can get some perspective on where the poster's

heart is really at, and I am told to mind my own damn business.

Is there, again, anything that this President can do that offends the loyalists?

[Jakes Progress]

47. I feel like Travis Bickle.

Are you talking to me? Was it my post to which you meant to reply? I'm not understanding. I was addressing PS. Which poster die you want a perspective about and who told you that your shouldn't? Is this something from another thread?

[AndrewP]

61. Whenever I ask a question about President Obama, I'm called a PUMA or a hater

Actually, I think the President is a very smart man. But I do wonder why he is so willing to toss aside the liberals of the party and unwilling to engage the right wing nonsense.

[girl gone mad]

29. You keep talking about people "hating" the President...

but I see no evidence of hatred in any of the articles or posts in the threads where you've made this claim.

Why persist in making such a disingenuous assertion, when it only makes you appear either emotionally insecure or psychologically unbalanced?

[Jakes Progress]

41. Cause there is no defense so there must be attack.

It doesn't have to be logical or real. Just any charge to twist the thread and spin the response.

[LittleBlue]

50. Yes, it's the ignorant electorate's fault that Obama is funding religion

and taking away the ignorant electorate's right to challenge this in court.

:rofl:

[jefferson_dem]

52. He's jest lik Booooosh!

:crazy:

[ibegurpard]

22. why the surprise?

charter schools are the centerpiece of his education "reform"

[Exilednight]

25. This is the most telling part ............

In 2009, two Arizona newspapers reported that much of the largess was going to well-off families – even though the program was pitched as a way to help poor and minority students.

According to the Arizona Republic, two out of every three scholarships in 2007 went to middle- and upper-class students who would have already been able to attend private schools without the tax-credit aid.

[vaberella]

55. Actually---and this is in relation to my experience as a Catholic School Student.

Most catholic schools have all the students fill out tax forms and the families have to provide tax information. So if that is the case---then that is in relation to the school falsifying things in order for such fraudulent actions to take place. My family was broke and so of course I recieved special funding but I had a lot of forms to fill out.

To be more clear---you see the way Colleges basically say if you make too much money no pell and tap---and they're sticklers about it. You rarely hear of families who are well off benefitting from that system. Well that's the exact same paper work used in relation to Catholic school student aid. So where ever that information is coming from---that's a problem on the position of Arizona state corruption. Or whatever state does that. That stuff does not happen in NYC.

[Exilednight]

57. Actually, In NYC, state and city dollars are not used for private schools - except charter schools.

[vaberella]

59. Which is not the point of my post.

The point is, that the schools require the same paperwork used by public universities in New York in order to provide funding. So the problem lies entirely with Arizona laws or who's ever in charge of determining who gets funding. I was funded in a public university in New york that does get city and state dollars. All of the paper work I filled out was the same in my private school in order for me to get funding while in school. My point is, that there's fraudulent work going on and we can't say that's the entire system that makes it where minorities don't benefit but the rich do. That would be false.

[Exilednight]

62. The point of your post is that you don't know what you're talking about .............

To be more clear---you see the way Colleges basically say if you make too much money no pell and tap---

The point is, that the schools require the same paperwork used by public universities in New York in order to provide funding.

Tap and Pell grants each require different paperwork, (Tap grants are New York state funding, Pell is federal) which is also totally different when compared to elementary education. Three different items and three different forms of paperwork. I will also point out that NYS currently has no funding for elementary education for private schools. How do I know? I have a niece who is a gifted student, but no funding is available for her from the state, luckily she received private grants. Good old Suffolk County, plenty of taxes and shitty benefits.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

39. This decision could have ramifications extending well beyond

this one issue of funding private schools, because of the question of taxpayer "standing" to file these lawsuits.

That might be the reason the Justice Department is taking the position it is -- an outcome that liberals liked in this particular case could have repercussions that we didn't like at all.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skittles]

48. LOL

it just keeps getting better and better

[LittleBlue]

49. Why is he tearing down the separation of church and state?

I thought he was a supposed expert on the constitution. :puke:

[polichick]

53. Sometimes I think the prez has lost his mind. nt

[Dinger]

60. Hey Obama, Why Don't You Just Say It?

FUCK YOU TEACHERS AND YOUR UNIONS!

[QC]

63. Hopetastic! n/t

[cyr330]

64. There he fucking goes again. . .

Acting like a goddamned Repig.

[donco6]

67. Maybe Jesus was right.

"By your fruits you shall know them."

[Jefferson23]

65. Speechless. n/t

[KoKo]

66. Why has Obama..."Gone Off the Rails?" What's going on with him...?