CQ ($$) reports that the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a spending bill for foreign operations that will permit the U.S. to provide contraceptives to family-planning groups to distribute in developing countries. This would be an important change to the Global Gag Rule (also known as the Mexico City Policy) in ending restrictions on use of private funds by nonprofits with federal family planning grants.

Also in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today blocked a lawsuit by the group Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc., because average citizens do not have the legal right to challenge President Bush's program on federal aid to faith-based organizations. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote the majority opinion in the case. The lawsuit was filed in 2004 claiming that the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives unfairly used taxpayer money to give an advantage to religious groups seeking federal funding, supporting religious groups over secular ones. This case is of particular importance because of the precedent it will set about who can sue the federal government with issues involving government grants to religious organizations. "The administration argued that the foundation's taxpayer plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because the faith-based initiatives office was not specifically funded by Congress."

Read the Washington Post story here and the court opinion here.

The New York Times reports that the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has filed a lawsuit on behalf of three state taxpayers against North Dakota to prohibit public financing of the Dakota Boys and Girls Ranch. The teen Home provides therapeutic and rehabilitative services for troubled youth rooted in Christian teachings, Bible readings, and religious services. This case is the most recent legal challenge to public financing of religious-based programs. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision this month in another case brought by FFRF regarding whether private citizens may challenge in court the activities of the White House Faith-Based and Community Initiative.

For more information on the case, visit the Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy.

The New York Times reports on a shift of the Justice Department's civil rights mission. During the Bush administration, religious cases are being taken up much more than cases of racial discrimination. One example is the involvement in "court cases on behalf of religion-based groups like the Salvation Army that assert they have the right to discriminate in hiring in favor of people who share their beliefs even though they are running charitable programs with federal money." Instead of prosecuting racial injustice, it is disturbing to read that the federal government was supporting the ability of groups to hire based on religion, while the Justice Department was also making similar hiring decisions.

Figures provided by the department show that from 2003 through 2006, there was a notable increase of hirings from religious-affiliated institutions like Regent University and Ave Maria University. . . . Several career lawyers said that some political appointees favored the religious-oriented employees, intervening to steer $1,000 to $4,000 annual merit bonuses to them."

The state of Pennsylvania and civil liberties groups settled a lawsuit that challenged government funding of a faith-based job training program at a county jail. The settlement requires that state officials do not use public funds to support religious activities, that tax-funded programs will not religiously discriminate against program participants, and that the state will monitor the program activities to ensure there are no violations. The lawsuit filed in 2005, charged that federal funding of the Firm Foundation's training program violates the Establishment Clause, and the religious-freedom provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The program reportedly proselytized inmates, pressured them to participate in prayer, and hired only Christians as employees. The agreement is similar to one reached in a case between the ACLU of Massachusetts and an abstinence education program called the Silver Ring Thing. This case again forces the question of what, if any, religious activities the government can fund without becoming government endorsement of religion. Read the Associated Press story here.