The United States Supreme Court will hear a lawsuit next week filed by the Madison-based Freedom From Religion Foundation challenging the use of taxpayer money to fund its faith-based and community initiatives. The White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives was established by executive order in 2001 and expanded the federal funding available to religious organizations that provide social services. Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-director of the foundation, filed the suit along with her husband and mother. "There has been an unprecedented assault on the First Amendment under Bush," Gaylor said. "And litigation has been the only remedy." According to a Dec. 4 press release by FFRF, the suit was initially rejected by a federal district court in 2004. The foundation appealed the case, and it was reinstated by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006. Last December, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted a request by the Bush administration to challenge the appeal. "These centers are vehicles for faith-based groups that promote religion," Gaylor said. The Supreme Court will decide whether taxpayers have the right to challenge the use of their tax dollars that fund social service organizations with religious ties. The appeal by the Bush administration hinges on the argument that the faith-based initiatives do not violate the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion." The faith-based initiatives were created by executive decree and the funding falls under Congress' general appropriations. The foundation's brief, however, documents tens of millions of federal tax dollars that have gone towards faith-based organizations. Gaylor said taxpayers have standing to sue because Congress, by funding the faith-based initiatives through general appropriations, is directly involved. "The Bush administration is erroneous(ly) claiming that Congress is not involved — actually, Congress is completely complicit." Gaylor said. "[There is a] special need and right for taxpayers to sue. Who else could sue? Religious groups aren't going to sue." The foundation has always been busy working to defend the separation of church and state, Gaylor said. In the past, the group has used litigation to overturn Good Friday as a state holiday and end Bible instruction in public schools. In recent years, however, their mission has become more critical. "There's never been such an assault on the establishment clause — it's all come to a head with the faith-based initiatives," Gaylor said. "When you unite a church and government, watch out, because it's the perfect recipe for tyranny." Similar cases challenging the constitutionality of taxpayer money that goes toward religious schools or institutions have reached the Supreme Court in the past. However, the Bush administration's faith-based initiatives have not yet been challenged in front of the Supreme Court. Recent turnover in the Supreme Court, specifically John Roberts and Samuel Alito replacing William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O'Conner, add to the uncertainty over how the court will rule. University of Wisconsin political science professor Donald Downs believes Alito holds a similar judicial philosophy regarding the establishment clause as Rehnquist did. "[O'Conner] was sort of middle-of-the-road on religion," Downs said. "On this kind of case, I think Roberts is going to be a little more conservative." The Court has upheld school vouchers that can be spent on tuition at religious schools. "Unlike school vouchers, where the majority of vouchers [go] to parents rather than to religious institutions, in this case it is going directly to religious institutions." Downs said. "This is much more constitutionally suspect than school vouchers." Oral arguments by the foundation before the Supreme Court are scheduled for Feb. 28.