The U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear oral arguments about whether taxpayers have the right to challenge the constitutionality of government funding for conferences supported by the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives that are alleged to promote religious groups over secular ones. Meanwhile, several recent court decisions involving separation of government-funded and religious programs provide some clarity to vague federal regulations. Because the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits government funds from being used to pay for programs that include religious content or require participation in religious activities, federal regulations require religious and government funded programs to be separated in time and place. However, there has been little concrete guidance on how federal grantees implement this standard and little oversight. Since the Bush administration began its push to increase participation of faith-based organizations in federal grant programs, there has been a series of legal challenges to specific programs brought by nonprofits concerned about separation of church and state. Supreme Court to Hear Case Challenging White House Faith-Based Office On Feb. 28, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) will argue before the Supreme Court that it should be allowed to challenge the constitutionality of the Bush administration's use federal funds for conferences the group says promote grant opportunities for religious organizations over secular ones. In December 2006, the Supreme Court granted review of Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc. (U.S. No 06-157), after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturned a lower court order dismissing FFRF's challenge. The Bush administration argues that because Congress has not earmarked appropriations directly for the faith-based offices, there is no basis to sue over the discretionary use of federal tax dollars to promote religion. However, according to a recent FFRF news release, its brief "documents the tens of millions of dollars which have gone to the faith-based offices, often with direct Congressional oversight, since many Cabinets have placed the faith-based offices in their budgets, which are reviewed and debated by Congress." If the Supreme Court rules in favor of FFRF, the case will go back to the lower court, which will consider the constitutional issues. Court Discontinues Funding for Michigan Teen Ranch On Jan. 17, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Michigan upheld the decision of a lower federal court against Teen Ranch, a Christian ministry treatment center for abused and delinquent children. The court found the organization routinely used state funds for religious instruction during treatment. In 2003, the state stopped sending funds to the program, and the Michigan Family Independence Agency stopped placing at-risk teens in their program after a routine review showed the program was proselytizing with federal funds. A plan to correct the problem submitted by Teen Ranch failed to address the proselytization issue. Instead, the group issued a statement saying, "Incorporating religious teachings into on-going daily activities of youth and their treatment plans touches at the core of why we were founded, why we are here today, and why we will continue to include such programming for children in our care." Teen Ranch sued claiming that their religious freedom, freedom of speech, and right to equal protection were denied when the funds were discontinued. They argued that since Michigan pays for the program on a per-child basis, it should be treated as a voucher program, which, under federal regulations on "indirect funding", would allow religious content in the program. However, Judge Damon Keith said that requires "true private choice" of program provider by those receiving treatment, and children at Teen Ranch had no real choice over their program placement. He also pointed out that the other 34 faith-based youth providers in Michigan had not violated rules against proselytizing. Ruling Allowing Spiritual Screening in VA Chaplain Programs Appealed FFRF will appeal a Jan. 8 federal district court ruling dismissing its lawsuit against the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In FFRF v. Nicholson, the group challenged the constitutionality of the VA's hospital chaplaincy program because the program broadly integrates faith while providing medical care. The VA has a required policy that each patient undergoes a spiritual assessment. One of the treatment programs referenced in the lawsuit is from Sheridan, Virginia. "The Sheridan VA Medical Center provides a drug and alcohol treatment program entitled the Spiritual Recovery Support Group (hereinafter SRSG). The purpose of SRSG is to provide intervention and support to veterans suffering from low self-esteem because of 13 significant spiritual injuries." The court said the VA program is permissible because it is voluntary. The opinion states, "Voluntariness lies at the heart of each and every aspect of VA's chaplaincy program being challenged by plaintiffs. In terms of its clinical chaplaincy program and integration into patient care, VA chaplains do not incorporate religious content into either their pastoral care or spiritual counseling unless that is the patient's wish." The court concluded that the VA's purpose is to promote the health of patients and that because patients could choose whether or not to work with chaplains, the program is therefore permissible. FFRF's appeal argues that patients do not have a choice in undergoing the spiritual screening, which it says asks intrusive questions about religious beliefs and practices.