Nos. 09-987, 09-991 In The Supreme Court of the United States ———————————————————————————————— ARIZONA CHRISTIAN SCHOOL TUITION ORGANIZATION, et al., Petitioner, v. KATHLEEN M. WINN, et al., Respondents. GALE GARRIOTT, Director of the Arizona Department of the Revenue, Petitioner, v. KATHLEEN M. WINN, et al., Respondents. ——————————— On Writs of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ——————————— BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF THE AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN ETHICAL UNION, ATHEIST ALLIANCE INTERNATIONAL, CENTER FOR INQUIRY, COUNCIL FOR SECULAR HUMANISM, FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INSTITUTE FOR HUMANIST STUDIES, SECULAR COALITION FOR AMERICA, SECULAR STUDENT ALLIANCE, SOCIETY FOR HUMANISTIC JUDAISM AND UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST ASSOCIATION, IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS ——————————— ROBERT V. RITTER Counsel of Record Appignani Humanist Legal Center 1777 T Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 238-9088 [email protected] Counsel for Amici QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Whether the First Amendment‟s Establishment Clause is violated by an Arizona statute under which school tuition organizations— state instrumentalities that are funded with tax revenues and heavily regulated by the state Department of Revenue—discriminate on the basis of religion in awarding scholarships. 2. Whether Respondents have standing as taxpayers to assert an Establishment Clause challenge to the Arizona statute. i ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED ……………………………..i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... v INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ............................ 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................... 2 ARGUMENT .............................................................. 4 I. ARIZONA‟S “SCHOLARSHIP” PROGRAM VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND ARIZONA. ................... 4 A. School Tuition Organizations are instrumentalities of the state. ...................... 6 B. Constitutions of the United States and Arizona prohibit government funding of religious instruction...................................... 8 C. The “purpose” of Section 1089 is to fund private religious instruction, thereby violating the Establishment Clause. ............ 9 D. The “effect” of Section 1089 is to fund private religious instruction, thereby violating the Establishment Clause. ............................... 15 iii II. ARIZONA TAXPAYERS HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE TAX CREDITS FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO SCHOOL TUITION ORGANIZATIONS. ........................................... 19 A. Non-Establishment Clause cases are inapposite with respect to taxpayer standing in Establishment Clause cases. …………………………………………………. 19 B. Respondents have standing under Flast and Doremus. ..................................................... 20 C. For more than sixty years the Supreme Court and lower courts have granted taxpayer standing in Establishment Clause cases; this practice is entitled to deference and respect. ................................................. 27 III. THE PURPOSE OF “STANDING” IS TO ENSURE A REAL “CASE OR CONTROVERSY,” NOT TO INSULATE THE ACTS OF GOVERNMENT FROM JUDICIAL REVIEW. 35 CONCLUSION ......................................................... 37 APPENDIX IDENTIFICATION OF AMICI CURIAE … App. 1 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc. v. Baker, 885 F.2d 1020 (2nd Cir. 1989) . 33, 34 Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) . 13, 29 Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) . 35 Board of Education of Kiryas Joel School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994) . 29 Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589 (1988) . 23, 24 Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995) . 16 City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) . 4 City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297 (1976) . 18 Committee for Pub. Educ. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973) . 13, 29, 34 v Cases (Cont.) Page Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923) . 19 County of Allegheny v. ACLU of Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S 573 (1989) . 18 DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) . 3, 19, 20, 26, 30 Doremus v. Board of Ed. of Borough of Hawthorne, 342 U.S. 429 (1952) . 3, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) . 8, 26, 27, 28, 34 Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968) . passim Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Geithner, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 50413 (E.D. Cal. 2010) . 34 FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990) . 30 Griggs v. Public Funds for Public Schools of New Jersey, 417 U.S. 961 (1974) . 29 vi Cases (Cont.) Page Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. 551 U.S. 587 (2007) . 3, 36 Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88 (2004) . 12, 23, 30, 31 Horvath v. Westport Library Ass’n, 362 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2004) . 7 Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734 (1973) . 29, 34 Johnson v. Econ. Dev. Corp. of County of Oakland, 241 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2001) . 32, 34 Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 513 U.S. 374, 378 (1995) . 6 Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 603 (1971) . 9, 29 Levitt v. Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty, 413 U.S. 472, 478 (1973) . 29 Marburger v. Public Funds for Public Schools of New Jersey, 417 U.S. 961 (1974) . 29 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 178 (1803) . 21, 35 vii Cases (Cont.) Page Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) . 29 McCreary County v. ACLU of Ky., 545 U.S. 844 (2005) . 10, 21 Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349 (1975) . 29 Mitchel v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793 (2002) . 29 Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983) . 29, 34 Public Funds for Public Schools of New Jersey v. Byrne, 590 F.2d 514 (3rd Cir. 1979), aff’d 442 U.S. 907 (1979) . 31, 32, 34 Roemer v. Board of Public Works, 426 U.S. 736 (1976) . 17, 29 Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000) . 5, 10, 16 Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. To Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208 (1974) . 20 School Dist. of Abington Township, Pa. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) . 5, 13 viii Cases (Cont.) Page School District of City of Grand Rapids v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373 (1985) . 29 Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) . 18 Sloan v. Lemon, 413 U.S. 825 (1973) . 17, 18, 29 Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1971) . 22 Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) . 5 Town of East Harford v. Hartford Bridge Co., 51 U.S. 511 (1985) . 14 United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974) . 20 Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (1982) . 19, 30 Waltz v. Tax Commission, 397 U.S. 664 (1970) . 29, 34 Warren v. Commissioner (“Warren I”), 282 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2002) . 32, 34 ix Cases (Cont.) Page Warren v. Commissioner (“Warren II”), 302 F.3d 1012 (2002) . 32, 33 West Virginia Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) . 5 Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 531 U.S. 457 (2001) . 14 Winn v. Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization (“Winn I”), 562 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2009) . 9, 13, 23, 34 Winn v. Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization (“Winn II”), 586 F.3d 649 (9th Cir. 2009) . 5, 13, 14, 15, 17 Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229 (1977) . 29 Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002) . 10, 11, 14, 16, 18, 29 Constitutional Provisions Ariz. CONST., art. 2, § 12 . 8 Ariz. CONST., art. 9, § 3 . 25 U.S. Const., art. 1, § 6, cl. 2 . 20 x Constitutional Provisions (Cont.) Page U.S. Const., art. 1, § 8 . 20, 25 U.S. Const., art. 1, § 9, cl. 7 . 20 U.S. Const., art 4, § 3, cl. 2 . 20 U.S. Const., amend. 1 . passim Statutes 26 U.S.C. § 107 . 32, 33, 34 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) . 33 28 U.S.C. § 1341 . 31 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 43-1089 . passim Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 43-1603(B)(1) . 6 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 43-1603(D)(2) . 12 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 43-1605 . 7 Ohio Rev. Code 3313.976(A)(6) . 11 Other Authorities The Arizona Republic, U.S. Supreme Court to weigh Arizona’s tax credit law, May 25, 2010 . 15 xi Other Authorities (Cont.) Page Brief Amicus Curiae of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, ACSTO v. Winn (2010) . 29 Diocese of Tucson Department of Catholic Schools, Handbook of School Policies and Procedures, §2110 “Admissions” (2004) . 16 Gompertz, Michael L., Lawsuit Challenges Income Tax Preferences for Clergy, 128 Tax Notes 81 (July 5, 2010) . 34 xii INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE 1 This amici curiae brief in support of the Respondents is being filed on behalf of the American Humanist Association, American Ethical Union, Atheist Alliance International, Center for Inquiry, Council for Secular Humanism, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Institute for Humanist Studies, Secular Coalition for America, Secular Student Alliance, Society for Humanistic Judaism and Unitarian Universalist Association, comprising a diverse array of secular and religious organizations that advocate on behalf of religious liberty and equal opportunity, and offer a unique viewpoint concerning the history of religious freedom and civil rights in the United States of America. Amici assert that this case addresses core humanist and atheist concerns about the public‟s responsibility to provide a secular education for our children. The Arizona statute at issue in this case— Ariz. Rev. Stat. §43-1089—subverts the tax system by providing tax credits for the funding of religious education for children. Taxpayers are given a dollar- for-dollar tax credit for contributions to school tuition organizations (“STOs”). In a hypothetical 1 Amici file this brief with the consent of all parties. Consents of the parties are on file with the Clerk of the Court. No counsel for any party in this case authored in whole or in part this brief. No person or entity, other than amici, their members or their counsel made a monetary contribution for the preparation or submission of this brief.