Abstract
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment protects against government-established religion. This protection is meaningless, however, if those protected are unable to challenge Establishment Clause violations because they lack standing. In Flast v. Cohen in 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court created an exception that allowed for taxpayer standing in certain cases. But in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, the Court narrowed the doctrine by finding that some taxpayers did not have standing to challenge a law that granted tax credits to people who contributed to scholarship organizations, which included religious schools. The Court reasoned that the tax credits in Arizona Christian were different from the government expenditures in Flast; therefore, the Court held that the Flast exception did not apply. This Comment examines the Court’s ruling in Arizona Christian and argues that it should have allowed standing to maintain the integrity of the First Amendment and the freedom from government-established religion.
Recommended Citation
Elleny Christopoulos,
Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn: Religion Stole the Money from the Taxpayer Jar—No Standing,Then Who?,
45 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 537
(2012).
Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol45/iss2/7
