Establishment Clause Challenge To Illinois Capital Appropriations Bill Fails

In Sherman v. Quinn, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83313 (CD IL, Aug. 16, 2010), an Illinois federal district court has dismissed both facial and as-applied Establishment Clause challenges to Illinois 2009 capital appropriations bill.  Activist Rob Sherman had sought to enjoin appropriations to 176 groups. (See prior posting). After dismissing some of the claims on 11th Amendment grounds, the court held that plaintiff lacks taxpayer standing to mount a broad facial challenge to the legislature's appropriation of $2.23 billion for the governor to distribute to community-based human services providers. Plaintiff argued merely that the law might be administered unconstitutionally. The court rejected plaintiff's as-applied challenge to 176 specific line items because no funds have yet been expended. Finally the court rejected plaintiff's facial challenge to those line items, finding that they meet the Lemon test for secular purpose and effect and no excessive entanglement. The court concluded: "If, after the money in these provisions has been disbursed, Plaintiff discovers that something potentially unconstitutional is underfoot, he may raise an as-applied challenge to the provisions."