## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 05

- 2749 J OAN L ASKO W SKI an d D ANIEL M. C OO K, P la intif fs-A pp ella nts, v.
M ARGARE T S PE LL I NGS, i n hero ffi ci alcapaci ty as S ec r et ar y o fthe Uni te d S ta te s Depa r tmento fEduc at i o n, D efend a nt-A pp ellee, and
U NIVER S ITY OF N OTRE D A ME, D efend a nt-In terven o r-A pp ellee

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 03 C1810

—L arry J . M cKinn ey, Judg e.
A RGUED N OVE MBE R 5, 2007

— D ECI DE D O CT OB ER 14, 2008

Befo re P OSNER, E VANS, an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . Thi s ca se re tu r ns to us f o l l o wi ngthe S upr eme Co ur t’ s o r derg r an tingc er ti o r ar i, v ac at i ngo ur2 N o. 05

- 2749 pri orj ud gm ent, and re m anding forfurtherco nsi derat i on in l ight of H ei n v. F re edom from Religion Found ation, Inc. , 55 1 U .S. ___, 12 7 S . C t. 25 53 (20 07 ). U niv. of Not r eD am ev. Las kows ki, 1 27S
. Ct
. 3 05 1 ( 20 07 )
. The i ss ue is whethe r the p lai nt iff- tax p ayers h ave sta nd ing un d er Fla st v . Co hen , 39 2 U
. S. 83 ( 1968 ) , t o m ai ntai n an Estab l i shm ent Cl ause chal l enge to a co ngre ssi onalgr ant a ftert h e funds have b e e n ful l y p a i d a nd the g r a nth a s e xp i r e d. The taxpayer s s ued the S ecr eta ry o fEdu cati on t o enj oin p ay m en t o f th e m on ey bu t d id n o t s e e k a p re lim ina ry inj uncti on. The gr ant r eci pie nt, the U ni ver si ty of N o tr e Dame, i nt erve ne d t o pr o te cti ts i nt er es t i n the fun ds

— $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 d e s i gn a t e d fo rat e a c h e r - t r a i ningp r o g r a m. W hi l e the sui t was pending, however, the gr ant e xpir ed an d the d i s t r i c tc o u r td i s mi s s e d th e c a s e a s mo o t
. T he taxp aye rs appeal ed and thi s panelspl i t; the m aj or i ty r ev er se d, ho l di ngtha t al th ou g h the c l ai m a g ains t th e Se cre tar y o fEdu cati on was m oot, th e s uitwas not. Las kows kiv. Sp e l l i ngs , 44 3 F .3d 93 0, 93 3 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ). Th is concl usi on fl owed fro m the m aj or i ty’ s v i ew that restitut ionar y r eli ef could be obtaine d against N otre Dame i n the f o r m o fa n o r dert o r epa y the grantt o the U .S. Tr ea su ry . Id. at 934- 35. T h a tr u l i n gh a s b e e n c a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n b y th e S u p r e me Cou r t’ s dec i si o n i n H ei n , a no the r Es t a b l i s hme ntCl ause case fro m thi s ci rcui t invol vi ng the i ssue ofta xpayer st an di ng

— speci fi cal l y, the questi on wh etherthe F l a st e xc e pt i o n t o the r ul e a g a i ns tt a xp a y e r s t a nd i nge xtended to sui ts chal l engi ng Executi ve Branch progr am s fund ed b y g en er al a p p ro p ria tio n s. H e i n a ns we r e d thi s que sti onN o. 05

- 2749 3 “no, ” l eaving the Fla stex c ep tio n in p lac e b u t n ar ro w ly confi ni ng i t t o i ts f acts
. A fter H ei n , taxp ay er s co nt i nue t o ha ve s ta ndi ngt o s ue f oral l ege d Establ i shm ent Cl ause viol ati ons w ro ught by sp ec ific c on gr es sio n al a p p ro p ria tio n s u n d er t h e A rt icle I, S ec ti o n 8 t ax i nga nd spe ndi ngpo wer, b utthi s st an di ng e x t e n d s o n l y t o su i t s t o e nj o i n th e v i o l a t i o n . A s c i r c u mscribed by H ei n , the Fla st e xc e pt i o n do e s no t e xt e nd to sui ts f orr etr ospe c ti ve m onet ar y r el i efag ai nst pr i vate parti es such as the r est i tuti onar y r em edy env isi oned aga i nst Notre Dam e h ere. Thi s ca se w as proper l y di sm i sse d as m oo t.

I . B a c kg r o und I n appropri ati ng m oneyf orthe Dep ar tm ent o fEdu cati on f orfi scalye ar20 00, Congre ss ear m ar ked $500 , 000 f or a g ran t to the U ni ver si ty ofN otr e Dam e t o supp or t a te ac he r qua l i tyi ni ti at i ve . Co ns o l i dat ed Appro pr i at i o ns A ct, 20 00 , Pub. L. N o. 10 6- 113, 11 3 S tat
. 15 01, 15 01A-262 ( No v . 2 9 , 1 9 9 9 )
. A t th e D e p a r t me n t ’ s r e q u e s t, N o t r e D a me subm i tt ed a g ra nt appli cati on t o re cei ve the m oney, i nd i c a t i ng tha t i t wo ul d b e us e d t o fun d i t s Al l i a nce f or Cathol i c Edu cati on ( “A CE ”) , a tea cher

- tr ai ni n g pr ogr am ai m ed at tr ai ni n g an d placing te acher s i n und er ser ved C a th o l i c s c h o o l s i n p o o r n e i g hb o r h o o d s . N o t r e D a me pla nned to re pli cate the A CE pro gr am i n partners hi p w i th f our othe r coll eg es and unive rs i ti es. The Departm ent o f Ed ucati on a w ar ded N otr e Dam e the gr ant. J o anLa sk o wsk i a nd Da ni elCo o k, b oth fede r alt ax pay er s who ha d no c o nne ct i o n t o the g r an t, b el i ev ed th e4 N o. 05

- 2749

ea r m ar kv i o l at ed th e Est ab l i sh m en t Cl au se a nd s ue d the Se cre tar y of the Dep ar tm ent of Ed ucati on to enj oin paym ent. N otr e Dam e in te rv ened as a defendant. Lasko w ski an d Cook did not seek a p reli m inary inj un ction, how ever, an d b y the t i m e th e di st r i ctc o ur t he ar d the i r c ase, the g r a n tmo n e y h a d a l r e a d y b e e n fu l l y p a i d t o N o t r e D a me an d the on e-tim e-only earm ark exp ired. Th e d istri ct cou rt dism i sse d the ca se as m oo t. On app eal, the t axpayer s co nceded that thei r re quest f ori nj uncti ve re l i efwas m oo t. But the y argued that an othe r f or m of re l i ef w as avai l abl e to save their su it from dism issal: the d istri ct cou rt c ou ld ord er th e Secretary of E d u c at ion to s e e k rec ou p m en t o f an y w ro n gfu lly d isb u r s e d fu n d s fro m N ot re D am e. T h is p an el u n an im ousl y r ej ecte d that a rgum ent, not i ng tha t t h e courthas no a utho r i ty to o r derthe S ec r et ar y t o s ee kr ec o upm en t f ro m N otr e Dam e because an age ncy’ s deci si on not to ta k e ane nf o r ce m en t ac ti o n i s wi thin t he di sc r et i o n o fthe age ncy a nd i s no t r evi ew abl e. Se eLa s kows ki, 44 3 F
. 3d at 934 (c iti ng H eck ler v. C ha ney, 470 U .S. 82 1, 83 1-3 3); id. at 940 (Sykes, J

. , dissen ting). B u t o u r p an el w as d ivid ed on w h et h er th e e n tir e s u it w as m oo t. The m aj or i ty concl ud ed that i t was notbec ause the di s t r i c tc o ur tc o ul d di r e ct l y or de r N ot re Dam e t o pay backany w ro ngfull y di sburs ed m oneyas r est i tuti on t o th e U. S
. Tr ea su r y f o r the governm en t’ s Est ab l i sh m en t C lau se vio lat ion
. Id. at 934-3 5. Thi s a l ter nati ve f or m o f r el i ef, the maj o r i tyc o nc l ude d, f o r es ta l l ed m o o tn es s an d p er m itt ed th e tax p ay er s’ s u it t o p ro c ee d on th e m er its
. Id. at 935- 36. The S up re m e C ourtgr anted ce rt i or ar i, vac ate dN o. 05

- 2749 5

ou r j u d gm en t, an d rem an d ed for re c o n s i d er at ion in li gh t of H ei n .
I I . Discussi on We n o t e a tth e o u t s e tth a tthi s c a s e d i ff e r s fr o m H e i n in that the taxpaye rs her e br ought an Establ i shm ent Cl ause c h a l l e n ge to a sp ec ific c on gr es sio n al e ar m ar k, n ot (as in H ei n ) a c ha l l e ng e t o an E xec ut i v e Br a nc h pr o g r a m s up po r te d b y g en er ala ppr o pr i at i o ns . The i ss ue i n H e i n w as whethe r the t ax pay er s ha d s ta ndi ngfr o m the s ta rt; the i ssue here i s m oo tness , a subseto fst anding doctr i ne. That doesn’ t chang e the anal ys is. M oo tness i s “ the doct ri ne o f sta nd i ng se t in a ti m e f ra m e: The re quis i te perso nal inter est that m ust e xi st at the c om m encem ent o fthe l i ti gat i on ( sta nd i ng) m ust conti nue thro ughout i ts exi ste nce ( m oo tness )
. ” Frien ds o f the E a rth, Inc . v. Laid la w E vtl . Servs., Inc. , 52 8 U. S
. 1 67, 1 89 ( 20 00 ) ( i nt erna l quo ta ti o ns a nd ci tat i ons om i tte d). The ta xpayers “m ust dem onst ra te stand i ng se parat el y forea ch f or m o fr el i efso ught. ” Id. at 185. Every one agre es thatthe expir ati on o fthe gr ant m oo ts th e tax p ay er s’ cla im ag ain st th e Se c re ta ry of E d u c at ion
. See B urk e v. B a rnes , 47 9 U .S. 3 61, 36 3 ( 1987 ) ( a chal l enge to the v al i dity o fa sta tute i s m oo ted w h en t h e s tatute ex p ire s b y its ow n te rm s); D iffend erfer v. C ent . B a pti st Chur ch of

M i am i, Fl a. , Inc, 4 04 U .S. 41 2, 41 4-1 5 (1 97 2); Fed’n of Adve r . Indu s . Repre s e nt at i ve s , In c. v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 32 6 F. 3d 924, 92 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03)
. The co ncre te adver sit y that once supp or ted s ta n d i ng to sue i s g one; the pros pecti ve6 N o. 05

- 2749 i nj unc tiv e r el i efso ught ag ai nst the S ecr eta ryi s no l onge r av aila b le

— m or e p re c ise ly, is p oin tle ss be c au se t h er e is no th i ngt o e njoi n. The que st i o n n o w i s whethe r, i n l i g ht of H ei n , th e ta xpa y er s ha ve s ta ndi ngt o pur su e th e re m edy pro posed by our ear l i erpanelo pini on

— re sti tuti on ofthe gr ant m oneyby N ot re Dam e t o the U. S. Tre asur y. W e c on c lu d e t h e a n sw er to th is q u es tio n m u st be “n o.” The g en er alr ul e i s th ata pl aint i ffhas standi ngt o s ue onl y fori nj uri es to hi s own int erest s that ca n be re m edi ed by a cou rt order. See Lujan v. D ef enders of Wil dlif

e, 504 U
. S. 55 5, 56 1 (1 99 2). T h is is b ec au se th e “ fed er al c ou rt s s it

‘ s o l e l y, t o de c i de o n the r i g ht s o fi nd i v i du a l s. ’ ” H ei n , 127 S. C t. at 2562 ( quoti ng M ar b ury v . M adi s on , 1 Cr a nc h 1 37, 17 0 ( 18 03 ) )
. “ Art i cl e I I Io fthe Co ns titut i o n l i m i ts the j udi c i a l po we r o f the Uni t e d S t a t e s t o the r e s o l ut i o n of ‘C as es ’ an d ‘C on tr ov er sie s,’ an d ‘A r t i c le IIIst an d in g . . . enf or ces the Const i tuti on’ s ca se- or - contr ove rs y r equi re m en t.’ ” Id. ( quoti ng D ai m l e r Chrys l e rCorp. v. Cuno , 547 U
. S. 332, 34 2 ( 2006 ) (i nter nal quotat i on m ar ks om i tte d))

. Establ i sh ed st an di ngdo ct r i ne r equires th e par tyi nv o k i ngthe c ou rt ’s a u th or ity to d em on s t r a te a “p er so n al inj u ry fairly tr aceabl e t o the defendant’s al l ege dlyunl aw ful con d uct and l i kel y t o be r edres sed by the re quested r el i ef

. ” A llen v. Wr ight, 468 U
. S. 737, 751 (1984 ). A co ro l l ar y i s the r ule thata pla i nti ff’ s paym ent o fta xes is general l y insuffi ci ent t o est abl i sh st anding to chal l enge the consti tuti onal i ty ofa go ver nm ent pr ogr am o r acti vi ty. H ei n , 12 7 S. C t. at 25 62 ; D a im lerC hry sler, 547 U
. S. at 342

- 44; B ow en v. Kendri ck, 48 7 U .S. 58 9 , 6 1 8 -20 (19 88 ); Vall ey F orge C hristia n C o ll. v. A m s. U nited fo r Sep a rati o n of C hu rch & Sta te,N o. 05

- 2749 7 Inc. , 45 4 U .S. 46 4, 4 7 7

- 8 0 (19 82 ); Schle si nger v. R es ervists C o m m . t o S t op theWar, 41 8 U .S. 20 8, 21 5 (1 97 4); U nited St at e s v. Ri ch ar ds on , 4 18 U .S. 16 6, 17 1-7 3 (1 97 4); Fla st, 39 2 U .S. at 1 01 -06 ; D orem us v. B d. of Ed uc. , 342 U
. S. 42 9, 43 3- 34 (19 52 ); Frot hi ngh am v. M e l l on , 262 U
. S. 447, 486-89 (1923 ). T h e re as on : t a x p a ye rs h av e n o d ire c t, p er so n al in te re st in th e m o ne y i n the Tr ea su r y sim p ly by v i r tu e o fha ving p aid tax es an d therefore su ffer no r e d r essab le injury when th e f ede r alg o ve r nm en t put s m o ne y t o unc o ns ti tu
tio n al u se . SeeHei n , 127 S. Ct. at25 59 ( “I n ligh t o fthe si ze o f th e f ede r al budg et, i t i s a co m pl et e fi ct i o n to arg ue that a n un c o ns t i t ut i o na l f e de r a l e xp e nd i t ur e c a us e s an in d i vid u al fe d er al t ax p ay er an y m ea su ra b le e c on om ic harm

. ”)
. The in teres t o fi nd i vi du alta xpayers i s s hare d i n com m on with al l o therta xpayers and i s there f or e “ too g e ne r a l i z e d a nd a t t e nuat ed t o s up po r tAr t i c l e I I Is t a nd

i ng. ” Id. at 2563
. Dati ng to Frot hi ngh am , de ci ded wi th Com m onwe al t h of M as s ac hus e t t s v. M e l l on , 262 U .S. 44 7, 4 88 (19 23 ), th e ru le aga i ns t taxp aye r sta nd i ng has re si ste d excepti ons, f or goo d rea son: “[ I ] fev er y fed er alta xpayer coul d sue to chal l enge any Gove rnm ent expend i ture , the f edera l co urts w oul d cease to fu n c tio n as cour ts ofl aw and w oul d be cas t in the ro l e o fge nera l co m pla i nt bur eaus. ” H ei n , 127 S. Ct. at 2559. S tandi ng r equi re m ents, i ncl ud i ng the bar aga i nst t axpayerst anding, “ ‘ ar e a n ess enti ali ngre die nt o f separ ati on a nd equi l ibra ti on o fpow er s, ’ ” id. at 25 70 ( quoti ng Ste el C o. v. C it izens for B et te r E nv’t, 523 U
. S. 83, 10 1 (19 98 )), a n d t h e “ ‘[r]e lax at ion of st an d in g re q u ire m en ts is dir ectl y r el ate d to the e xpansio n ofj ud i ci alp ow er ,’ ” i d.8 N o. 05

- 2749 ( quoti ng Ric har ds on , 418 U
. S. at 188 (Pow ell, J
. , conc urring))
. T h i s c a s e c on c er n s t h e lon e e x c ep tio n to th e ru le ag ains t ta xpa y ers ta ndi ng . I n Fl ast, t he Sup rem e C ou rt he l d tha t ta xpa y er s ha ve s ta ndi ngt o r ai se Es tabl i sh

m ent Cl ause chal l enges to s peci fi c co ngre ssi onalexer ci ses of t h e A rt icle I, S ec tio n 8 t ax in g an d s p en d in g p ow er . Fla st, 39 2 U. S
. a t 10 2- 03
. T he pl aint i ff

- ta xpa y er s i n Flast sued to enj oin fed er al a p p r o p ria tio n s m ad e t o re ligiou s s c h oo ls und erthe Fam i l y and Secondar y A ct of19 65. Id. at8 5. The Cou r t pe r mi t t e d the i r Es t a b l i s hme nt Cl a us e c l a i m to proce ed beca use they ha d chal l enged s peci fi c appro pri ati o ns made pu rsu an t to Co ng r es s’ s Art i cl e I, S ec ti o n 8 ta xi nga nd s pen di ngpo wer, a nd the Es tabl i sh m en t C lau se lim its th e e x er c ise of th at p ow er . Id. at 103- 04. W hi l e ta xpa y er s g en er al l y s uff er n o i nj ur y fr o m the depl et i o n o fthe fede r alTr ea su r y, the i nj ur y s uppo r ting st an di ngunder F la st der i ve s f r o m “ th e ve r y ‘ ex tr ac t[ i o n] an d sp en [d in g ] ’ of ‘ta x m on ey ’ in a id of re ligion .” D a im le r C hry sler, 54 7 U.S
. at34 8 ( quoti ng Fla st, 39 2 U.S
. at 10 6). Flast di d no t, ho wev er, c r ea te a n e xc eption to the ta xpa y er - st an di ng ba r f or all Establ i shm ent Cl ause case s. Only w hen a taxpayerchal l enges a speci fi c co ngre ssi onal appropri ati on

— not a g ove rnm ent pr ogr am o r acti vi ty funde d fr o m g en er ala ppr o pr iation s

— w i l l the l i nk to the Arti cl e 1 , S ecti on 8 ta xin g an d spend i ng power be su ffici en t to sup p ort stan d ing un d er Fla st
. Hei n , 12 7 S. Ct. at 25 69 ; Fla st, 39 2 U.S
. at10 2- 03. This panel pre vi ousl y di sag re ed ov er w hetherthe Fla st excepti on was ela sti c enough to p er m i t an othe rwis e m oo tN o. 05

- 2749 9 Establ i shm ent Cl ause cl ai m to pro ceed ag ai nst a pri vate grantr ec i pi en t f o r r es ti tu ti o n t o the U. S
. Tr ea su r y . The m aj or i ty i m pli citlyco ncl ud ed that i t was, r eas oni ng tha t th e ta xpa y er s ha d s ta ndi ngwhenthe c as e was fi l ed an d i t woul d m ak e l i tt l e se ns e to ho l d tha t th e di sbu rs ement ofthe m oneyand expirat ion of the g ra nt di vest ed them of the au th ority to recove r the m one y for t h e Treas ury via an ord er of re st itu tio n ag a in st N ot re D am e. Las kows ki, 443 F. 3d at 934- 35. The di sse nt d isagre ed, not i ng tha t re sti t ut i o n f r o m a p r i v a t e p a r t y i s n o ta kno wn r e med y foran Establ i shm ent Cl ause vi ol ati on a nd thatta xpayer stan d ing un d er Flast i s no t, i n any eve nt, pre m i sed upon inj u ry to th e T re as u ry . Id. at 943-44. ( Sykes, J

. , dissen ting). Our r es pec ti ve po si ti o ns a r e ampl y e xpl aine d i n o ur pri ordeci si on a nd need notbe ex p lored furtherher e. A fter H ei n , the issu e is no longe r w he th er Fla stmight l o g i cal ly be e xpa nde d t o i nc l ude s ta ndi ngt o pur su e the r est i tuti onar y r el i efposi ted byo ur pri orpanel m ajorit y; th e Su p re m e C ou rth as n ow m ad e itab u n d an tly cl ear that Flast i s n o tt o b e e xp a nd e d at all

. H e i n i nvol ved an Establ i shm ent Cl ause chal l enge to co nfer en ce s co nduc te d b y the Pre si den t’ s F ai th

- Bas ed an d C om m u n ity In itia tiv es p ro gr am . A d ivid ed p an el of t h is co ur t co nc l ude d tha t th e pl aint i ff

- ta xpa y er s ha d s tandi ng un d er Fla stev en tho ugh t h e confer ences w er e fund ed out ofge nera l Executi ve B ra n c h appropri ati ons ra ther th ana s pec i fi c co ng r es si o na l e xe r ci se o fthe t ax i nga nd sp en d in g p ow er . SeeHei n , 12 7 S. C t. at 25 61 (d isc u ss in g t h is cour t’ s o pini on, appearing under t he nam e Fre e dom f r om Rel igi on Fou nd. , Inc . v. Chao , 433 F.3d , 9 89, 994 ( 7th Cir.10 N o. 05

- 2749 2006 ))
. Th e Sup rem e C ou rt r e v ersed , althou gh the C ou rt w as divi ded o n the ra ti onal e. W ri ti ng f ora th re e-j usti ce pl ural i ty, J usti ce Ali to fi rs t re i ter ate d the Court ’ s a dh er en c e t o the F r o t h i n g h a m ru le aga i nst t axpayerst anding, id. at 25 62- 63, and then m ove d on to the Fla stexce pti on a nd the Court’ s s ubseq u e n tta x p a y er-stan d ing j urisp rud en ce. Tracingthe C ou rt’s post- Flast case law, the plur al i ty f ound it“s i gni fi cant that, i n the f o ur de c a de s s i nc e i t s c r e a t i on, the Fla stexce pti on has l ar gel y b een c onfi ned to it s f acts
. ” Id. at 2568

- 69. Because “ Flast f o cus ed o n con g r es si o na l a ct i o n, ” th e plur al i ty“ dec l i ne [ d] th[ e] i nv i ta ti o n t o e xt en d i ts ho l di ng to en c om p as s d isc re tio n a ry E x ec u tiv e B ra n c h ex p en d iture s. ” Id. at 2568
. T h e C o u r ti n H e i n had been a ske d to ove rr ule r ather then s i m plyl i m i t Fla st, an d J us ti ce S ca l i a, i n a c o ncurr ence j oi ned by J usti ce Thom as, would have don e s o. Id. at 2573

- 74 ( Sca l i a, J
. , co ncurr i ng)
. The pl ural i ty w ithh eld j ud gm e n t on th is que stion. Bec au se th is court’s o pi ni o n ha d e xp a nd e d r a the r tha n a pp l i e d Fla st, the H ei n p lurali ty th ou gh t recon side ration of Fla stwas not str i ctly n ec es sa ry t o a d ec isio n in t h e c as e. Id. at 2571
. N onethel ess , the plu ra litywarned against e xtending Fla st“t o t h e lim it of its logic

. ” Id. The pl ural i ty note d that the Court ’ s pos tFlast t a x p a y e r - s t a n di ng j u ris p ru d en c e h ad effe c tiv ely c om e t o re st on th e p os itio n ta ke n b y J u st ice P ow ell in hi s co nc ur r en ce in U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ri ch ar ds on , 41 8 U.S
. at 180: thatthe Flast excepti on s houl d be l i m i ted “ ‘ to an o uter boundary draw n by the re sul ts i n Fla st .’ ” Hei n , 12 7 S
. Ct. at 2569 ( q uoti ng Ric har ds on , 418 U .S. at 1 96 ) (em p h as is in H ei n ).N o. 05

- 2749 11 On the pr es en t vi ta l i tyof F l a st, ther ef or e, the H ei n pl ur al i tyes sen ti al l y de cl ar ed a tr uce wi ththe c o nc ur r i ng j us t i c e s : “ W e do no t e xt e nd Fla st, but we al so do not ove rr ule i t. W e l eave Flast as w e f ound it

. ” Id. at 25 71 -72. T h i s i s n ot a rin gin g e n d or se m en t. T h e C ou rtis p lain ly disincl i ned to enter tai n any re m edi ali nnovati ons that d ep en d up on an exp an sive i nt erp retation of Flast
. W e hav e pr evi ou sly h el d that J usti ce Ali to’ s pl ural i ty o pi ni o n in H ei n “ i s co nt r o l l i ngb ec au se i t ex pr es se s th e narrow estposi ti on t ake n by the J usti ces w ho co ncurr ed i n the j ud gm ent. ” Fre e dom f rom Re l igi on Fou nd. , Inc . v. N i ch ol s on , 53 6 F
. 3d 73 0, 73 8 n. 11 ( 7th Ci r . 2008) ( ci ting M a rks v . U nited Sta tes , 4 30 U. S
. 1 88 , 1 93 ( 19 77 ) )
. The im p o r t of the plura li ty op inion is th at th e reach of Fla st i s no w stri ctl y c onfi ned to the re sul ti n Flast
. And the r es ul t i n Fla stwas that the t axpa ye rs had sta nd i ng to see k a n i nj uncti on t o hal t a speci fi c co ngre ssi onalappropri ati on a l l ege d to vi ol ate the Establ i shm ent Cl ause. Acc o r di ng l y, we r e a d H e i n to m ean that ta x p ayers conti nue to have st anding to sue f ori nj uncti ve re l i ef aga i nst s peci fi c co ngre ssi onalappropr i ati ons al l eged to vi o l at e the Est ab l i sh m en t Cl au se , b uttha t i s al l

. Pe r m i tt i ng a ta xpa y ert o pr o ce ed agains t a pr i va te g r an t r ec i pi en t f orr est i tuti on t o the Tr eas ury as a r em edy i n an o th er wi se m oo t Est ab l i sh m en t Cl au se c as e woul d e xt en d the Flast ex ce pti o n b ey o nd the l i m i ts o fthe r es ul t i n Fla st
. A fter H ei n , su c h an e x te n sio n is u n w ar ra n te d

. Seegene rally N i ch ol s on , 536 F. 3d at 739 ( describi ng H ei n ’ s r efusalto e xp a nd Fla st ); Chapl ai ncy o f Fu l l Gos pe l Chur ch e s v. U
. S. N avy (In reNavy Chapl ai ncy) , 534 F.3d 756 , 7 62 (D
. C
. Cir.12 N o. 05

- 2749 2 008) ( H ei n “f or cefull y e m phasi zed the [ Fla st ] e xc ept i on’s e x t r em ely lim ite d co n to u rs ”); H i nr i ch s v. Sp e ake rof t he H ouse of Repre se nta tives of the Ind. G en. Asse m bly, 50 6 F.3d 58 4, 59 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( em phasi zi ng tha t H ei n re i nfor c ed that the Flast excepti on t o the r ule ag ai nst tax p ayer stan d ing “is a narrow one” ). The o nl y f o r m o fr el i efthe t ax pay er s here ha d s ta ndi ng t o see k

— an i njun ction aga inst th e S ec r et ary ’ s di sb ur se m en t o fthe a l l eg edl y unc o nstitut i o na l g r an t

— i s no l onge r av ai l ab l e be ca us e th e g r an t was no t a co nt i nui ng o ne and i t e xpir ed w hi l e the s u it w as pend i ng i n the dist ri ct co ur t. Tha t cl ai m i s m o o t, a nd the r e i s no r es i duals ta ndi ng to pur su e a cl ai m f o r r es ti tu ti o na r y r el i efa g ains t N o tre Dam e, a pri vate party, f orr ei m burse m ent o fthe Treas ury. The dis tr i ct c ourtpro perl y di sm i sse d thi s ca se as m oo t. A FFI RMED .

10- 14- 08