The Supreme Court let stand an Arizona program that aids religious schools , saying in a 5-to-4 decision that the plaintiffs had no standing to challenge it:

The program itself is novel and complicated, and allowing it to go forward may be of no particular moment. But by closing the courthouse door to some kinds of suits that claim violations of the First Amendments ban on government establishment of religion, the courts ruling in the case may be quite consequential. Justice Elena Kagan, in her first dissent, said the majority had laid waste to the doctrine of taxpayer standing, which allows suits from people who object to having tax money spent on religious matters. The courts opinion, Justice Kagan wrote, offers a road map  more truly, just a one-step instruction  to any government that wishes to insulate its financing of religious activity from legal challenge.

Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedyonce again providing the swing votemakes a great point:

Awarding some citizens a tax credit allows other citizens to retain control over their own funds in accordance with their own consciences, Justice Kennedy wrote for himself, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. The plaintiffs position, Justice Kennedy wrote, assumes that income should be treated as if it were government property even if it has not come into the tax collectors hands. But, he added, private bank accounts cannot be equated with the Arizona State Treasury.

Read more . . .