Flast v Cohen. State taxpayer standing is different from federal--broader. Crampton v Zabriskie This law is the epitome of one where broad standing should be allowed because of the obvious establishment issues raised and the clear discrimination against some law on a religious basis. It is not merely "in god we trust" on money.
But perhaps I was a bit flippant in my response. It should be the simplest standing case for injury by someone in the state. But, since it is not taxing and spending, it might not be so simple for this court. It is not a monument case. Nor is it like money cases and so on. It is targeting a specific religion for negative treatment. But, as I noted in my prior post, their is a possibility of someone actually having standing in the more traditional sense of particularized individual injury by application of the law, and the court could (to its discredit) allow the state to enact and have on its books such a law unchallenged and unchallengeable for decades until exactly the right case comes along. Steve On Nov 9, 2010, at 5:11 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote: > I’m not sure whether Prof. Jamar is making a point about what > standing law should be, or what it is now. But as to the latter, as best I > can tell, the Court has never held that anyone has standing to challenge a > law just because the law itself endorses or disapproves of a religion. And > Newdow v. Levefre (9th Cir. 2010), > http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=753698042392989497, seems to hold > that there is no standing in such cases: > > Newdow lacks standing to challenge 36 U.S.C. § 302, which merely recognizes > “In God We Trust” is the national motto. Unlike §§ 5112(d)(1) and 5114(b) > [which provide for the placement of the motto on currency], § 302 does not > authorize or require the inscription of the motto on any object. Without §§ > 5112 and 5114, the motto would not appear on coins and currency, and Newdow > would lack the “unwelcome direct contact” with the motto that gives rise to > his injury-in-fact. Although Newdow alleges the national motto turns Atheists > into political outsiders and inflicts a stigmatic injury upon them, an > “abstract stigmatic injury” resulting from such outsider status is > insufficient to confer standing. > > Other lower court cases recognizing standing to challenge monuments, city > seals, and the like have likewise all stressed the objectors’ “frequent > regular contact” with the offending inscriptions and symbols. Or am I > missing something here? > > Eugene > > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar > Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 2:04 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: TRO against Oklahoma "no use of Sharia Law" > > Simplest establishment standing case ever. Disfavoring one religion is an > establishment violation -- that gives anyone standing. Of course the current > court could change the rules and restrict standing in this area as they have > in others. Since it is at least theoretically possible that someone in > Oklahoma could suffer actual harm from this provision (enforcement of an > internationally valid Will which is compliant with Hanafi or Shafai or Wahabi > or other schools of Islamic jurisprudence, for example), the court could use > this to trim establishment claim standing. > > > On Nov 9, 2010, at 4:47 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote: > > > I thought I’d ask list members what they thought about this. Here’s my post > on the subject, in case it’s of interest – I’d love to hear whether others on > the list agree. > > > http://volokh.com/2010/11/09/district-court-temporarily-enjoins-oklahoma-no-use-of-shariah-law-in-court-constitutional-amendment > > > > > -- > Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 > Associate Director, Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice > http://iipsj.org > Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 > http://iipsj.com/SDJ/ > > > "Never doubt that the work of a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens > can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has." > > Margaret Meade > > > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; > people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) > forward the messages to others. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Associate Director, Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 http://iipsj.com/SDJ/ "Years ago my mother used to say to me... 'In this world Elwood' ... She always used to call me Elwood... 'In this world Elwood, you must be Oh So Smart, or Oh So Pleasant.' Well for years I was smart -- I recommend pleasant. You may quote me." --Elwood P. Dowd - Mary Chase, "Harvey", 1950
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
