Although some predicted that the Supreme Court would directly overturn its precedent in Flast v. Cohen, which held that taxpayers have standing to bring Establishment Clause challenges to government spending, the Court did not go quite that far this term. Yet in Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, the Court denied standing, shielding the Bush Administration's faith-based initiatives from taxpayer challenges on the ground that Flast applies only to programs funded by express Congressional enactment. Experts on church-state law explore the issue of standing, grounding the discussion in practical examples such as government displays of religious symbols and state funding of faith-based organizations. What is the practical effect of Hein? Does the Court's decision shed first light on how the Roberts Court is likely to approach the law of church and state? What additional challenges are likely to be brought in this area of law?

• Steven G. Gey, Professor of LawFlorida State University College of Law  (Real Video / Windows Media)
  
• Marci A. Hamilton, Professor of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law  (Real Video / Windows Media)
• Vivian E. Hamilton, Professor of Law, William & Mary Marshall-Wythe School of Law  (Introduction: Real Video / Windows Media)
• Barry W. Lynn, Executive Director, Americans United for Separation of Church and State  (Real Video / Windows Media)
• Andrew J. Pincus, Mayers, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP  (Real Video / Windows Media)

Link to questions and answers: Real Video / Windows Media