{"title":"美国政教分离联合会诉HEW:根据政教分离条款提起诉讼","authors":"Laury M. Frieber","doi":"10.4324/9781315699868-28","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"injury is that its members are particularly concerned about the injury suffered by all citizens when the government fails to act within the confines of the establishment clause. Like the court in Americans United, the Supreme Court in Flast was moved to find a way to grant standing to plaintiffs interested only in preserving the principle of the establishment clause. The Court in Flast created the nexus test in order to carve out an establishment clause exception to the rule against allowing a plaintiff to pursue a generalized grievance. The court in Americans United viewed the decision in Flast as limited by the plaintiffs' allegation in the pleadings of their status as taxpayers. According to the circuit court, this allegation constrained the Supreme Court in Flast from finding a personal right in the establishment clause sufficient to support standing.130 The dissent in Americans United refuted this argument, noting that citizen standing in establishment clause cases was expressly urged in the Flast briefs and the lower court dissent. s 127. 619 F.2d at 265. 128. 405 U.S. 727, 739-40 (1972). 129. 392 U.S. at 118 (Harlan, J., dissenting). 130. 619 F.2d at 261. 131. Id. at 270 (Weis, J., dissenting). See Flast v. Gardner, 271 F. Supp. 1, 11-13 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) (Frankel, J., dissenting). March 1981]","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":"32 1","pages":"975"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"1981-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. v. HEW: Standing to Sue under the Establishment Clause\",\"authors\":\"Laury M. Frieber\",\"doi\":\"10.4324/9781315699868-28\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"injury is that its members are particularly concerned about the injury suffered by all citizens when the government fails to act within the confines of the establishment clause. Like the court in Americans United, the Supreme Court in Flast was moved to find a way to grant standing to plaintiffs interested only in preserving the principle of the establishment clause. The Court in Flast created the nexus test in order to carve out an establishment clause exception to the rule against allowing a plaintiff to pursue a generalized grievance. The court in Americans United viewed the decision in Flast as limited by the plaintiffs' allegation in the pleadings of their status as taxpayers. According to the circuit court, this allegation constrained the Supreme Court in Flast from finding a personal right in the establishment clause sufficient to support standing.130 The dissent in Americans United refuted this argument, noting that citizen standing in establishment clause cases was expressly urged in the Flast briefs and the lower court dissent. s 127. 619 F.2d at 265. 128. 405 U.S. 727, 739-40 (1972). 129. 392 U.S. at 118 (Harlan, J., dissenting). 130. 619 F.2d at 261. 131. Id. at 270 (Weis, J., dissenting). See Flast v. Gardner, 271 F. Supp. 1, 11-13 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) (Frankel, J., dissenting). March 1981]\",\"PeriodicalId\":46736,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hastings Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"975\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"1981-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hastings Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315699868-28\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hastings Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315699868-28","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15
摘要
伤害是指当政府未能在建制条款的范围内采取行动时,其成员特别关注所有公民所遭受的伤害。与美利坚合众国的法院一样,弗拉斯特最高法院也被感动去寻找一种方法,给予那些只对保留确立条款原则感兴趣的原告诉讼资格。法院在Flast一案中创造了关联检验,目的是在不允许原告追究普遍申诉的规则中开辟一个确立条款例外。美国联合航空公司一案的法院认为,弗拉斯特案的判决受到原告在诉状中对其纳税人身份的指控的限制。根据巡回法院的说法,这一指控限制了Flast最高法院在确立条款中认定个人权利足以支持法律地位美国联合航空公司一案的异议反驳了这一论点,指出Flast的摘要和下级法院的异议都明确要求公民在政教分离条款案件中站在立场。127年代。619 F.2d, 265。128. 405 U.S. 727,739 -40(1972)。129. 392 U.S. at 118 (Harlan, J.,反对)。130. f .2,第261页。131. Id。第270页(Weis, J.,反对)。参见Flast v. Gardner, 271 F。增刊1,11 -13 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) (Frankel, J.,反对)。1981年3月)
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. v. HEW: Standing to Sue under the Establishment Clause
injury is that its members are particularly concerned about the injury suffered by all citizens when the government fails to act within the confines of the establishment clause. Like the court in Americans United, the Supreme Court in Flast was moved to find a way to grant standing to plaintiffs interested only in preserving the principle of the establishment clause. The Court in Flast created the nexus test in order to carve out an establishment clause exception to the rule against allowing a plaintiff to pursue a generalized grievance. The court in Americans United viewed the decision in Flast as limited by the plaintiffs' allegation in the pleadings of their status as taxpayers. According to the circuit court, this allegation constrained the Supreme Court in Flast from finding a personal right in the establishment clause sufficient to support standing.130 The dissent in Americans United refuted this argument, noting that citizen standing in establishment clause cases was expressly urged in the Flast briefs and the lower court dissent. s 127. 619 F.2d at 265. 128. 405 U.S. 727, 739-40 (1972). 129. 392 U.S. at 118 (Harlan, J., dissenting). 130. 619 F.2d at 261. 131. Id. at 270 (Weis, J., dissenting). See Flast v. Gardner, 271 F. Supp. 1, 11-13 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) (Frankel, J., dissenting). March 1981]
期刊介绍:
Hastings College of the Law was founded in 1878 as the first law department of the University of California, and today is one of the top-rated law schools in the United States. Its alumni span the globe and are among the most respected lawyers, judges and business leaders today. Hastings was founded in 1878 as the first law department of the University of California and is one of the most exciting and vibrant legal education centers in the nation. Our faculty are nationally renowned as both teachers and scholars.