ACLJ Urges Supreme Court to Back Arizona Tuition Tax Credit Program

"The Supreme Court has long said that taxpayers do not have an automatic ticket to march into court and challenge any government program they object to," said Jay Sekulow, ACLJ chief counsel.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 6, 2010—Today the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) filed an amicus brief in support of Arizona's tuition tax credit program.  The amicus brief was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court and contends that a lawsuit challenging the program should be dismissed on the grounds that those behind it do not have the legal standing to sue. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against the tax credit program last year, in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, but the Supreme Court has agreed to whether the tax credit program violates the Establishment Clause, and whether separationist taxpayers can bring the challenge in the first place. 

"The Supreme Court has long said that taxpayers do not have an automatic ticket to march into court and challenge any government program they object to," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ.  "The separationist taxpayers here claim a special right to sue because they are invoking the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  That's not fair, and that's not what the law says."

The Arizona tuition tax credit program allows individuals who contribute up to $500 to Student Tuition Organizations (STOs) to take a credit for the amount of the contribution on their state tax return.  The STOs then award scholarships to students to defray the cost of attending private schools.  To qualify for the program, STOs must be tax exempt entities that distribute at least 90 percent of their revenue in scholarships; offering scholarships to at least two different private schools.

The ACLJ amicus brief focuses on the question of legal standing to sue.  The implementation of the tax statute, as pointed out in the brief, has been carried out by taxpayers, parents and STO - all private entities that are not limited by the Establishment Clause.  The absence of government involvement in these decisions dooms the separationists' challenge.

"The state leaves all important decisions - where to donate, which schools to attend, which schools to support with scholarships - to private choice," said Sekulow.  "This is exactly the sort of private choice program that enables parents to choose the school they think best suits their children."

Regarding the constitutionality of the tax credit program, the brief states that if the Supreme Court reaches the issue, "it would have to depart from past precedent in ways that run contrary to the Court's teachings.”  Instead, the ACLJ contends that the case should have been dismissed in the trial court.

The ACLJ's amicus brief is available here.

Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice focuses on constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C.  The ACLJ is online at www.aclj.org.  Its online newsroom is available at DeMossNews.com/ACLJ.

-30-