Supreme Court Gives Win to Faith-Based Initiatives; Wisconsin Right-to-Life Also Victorious in Free Speech Case

Justices bar taxpayers suits against "faith-based" initiatives:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled today that ordinary taxpayers cannot challenge a White House initiative that helps religious charities get a share of federal money.

The 5-4 decision blocks a lawsuit by a group of atheists and agnostics against eight Bush administration officials including the head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

The taxpayers' group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc., objected to government conferences in which administration officials encourage religious charities to apply for federal grants.

Taxpayers in the case "set out a parade of horribles that they claim could occur" unless the court stopped the Bush administration initiative, wrote Justice Samuel Alito. "Of course, none of these things has happened."

The justices' decision revolved around a 1968 Supreme Court ruling that enabled taxpayers to challenge government programs that promote religion.

The 1968 decision involved the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which financed teaching and instructional materials in religious schools in low-income areas.

"This case falls outside" the narrow exception allowing such cases to proceed, Alito wrote.

[More]

My Comments:
There were a number of other significant decisions today, including a small but significant rollback of a portion of McCain-Feingold. For more on today's rulings see Bench Memos at National Review Online and the SCOTUSblog.


UPDATE
More on the partial rollback of McCain-Feingold and the role played by Wisconsin Right-to-Life:

Court loosens limits on election ads

(AP) The Supreme Court loosened restrictions Monday on corporate- and union-funded television ads that air close to elections, weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.

The court, split 5-4, upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections.

The case involved advertisements that Wisconsin Right to Life was prevented from broadcasting. The ads asked voters to contact the state's two senators, Democrats Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, and urge them not to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees.

Feingold, a co-author of the campaign finance law, was up for re-election in 2004.

The provision in question was aimed at preventing the airing of issue ads that cast candidates in positive or negative lights while stopping short of explicitly calling for their election or defeat. Sponsors of such ads have contended they are exempt from certain limits on contributions in federal elections.

Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by his conservative allies, wrote a majority opinion upholding the appeals court ruling.

The majority itself was divided in how far justices were willing to go in allowing issue ads.

Three justices, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, would have overruled the court's 2003 decision upholding the constitutionality of the provision.

Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito said only that the Wisconsin group's ads are not the equivalent of explicit campaign ads and are not covered by the court's 2003 decision.

(emphasis added)

"... joined by his conservative allies ..."

Wait a minute. I thought Justice Kennedy was a "thoughtful, moderate voice" whose "centrist" tendencies made him the perfect replacement for Justice O'Connor as the Court's "all-important swing vote".

Since this decision involved a right-to-life group, I'm surprised AP didn't point out that all 5 Justices voting to strike down the issue ad restrictions were Catholic.


UPDATE # 2
From The Hill:

McCain: 'Regrettable' decision

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Monday called the Supreme Court’s decision to weaken part of his campaign finance law “regrettable.”

***
“It is regrettable that a split Supreme Court has carved out a narrow exception by which some corporate and labor expenditures can be used to target a federal candidate in the days and weeks before an election,” McCain said. “It is important to recognize, however, that the Court’s decision does not affect the principal provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which bans federal officeholders from soliciting soft money contributions for their parties to spend on their campaigns.”

***
Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion that called for striking down any restrictions on corporate and union funded advertising within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election, but their views did not attract majority support.

Look who sided with McCain, and look who sided against him. That ought to serve as some indication of the kinds of Justices that McCain would put on the Court.

Even the "centrist" Anthony Kennedy thinks the entire McCain-Feingold boondoggle should be struck down and assigned to the dustbin of history.