Opinion ID: 803339
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ellen Tillett, her child, and the Foundation

Text: The facts to support standing for Ellen Tillett and her child are notably thin. They had no personal exposure to the Spartanburg Bible School course apart from their abstract knowledge of the School District’s released time policy. Moreover, they have alleged nothing to suggest that the policy or the Bible School course injured them in any way. Tillett’s child never participated in the course and had not been pressured or encouraged to attend the course by anyone. Neither Tillett nor her child suffered any adverse repercussions from the child’s decision not to enroll in the course. And the child’s GPA was higher than that of any student in the child’s class who took the Spartanburg Bible School course. Moreover, Ellen Tillett did not receive the promotional letter from Spartanburg Bible School, as her child had not entered high school at the time the letter was sent. She was told about the letter by Heidi Moss, Robert Moss’ wife, and only read it in preparation for this litigation. Tillett claims that after reading the letter, she found it to be offensive because it reflected intolerance and narrow-mindedness . . . in what should be an open learning environment. Tillett testified that the School District’s policy also made her child feel like an outsider at Spartanburg High School because it made him aware of the prevalence of intolerance in his community. Tillett has not suggested, however, that either she or her child altered conduct as a result of the released time policy. Tillett’s allegations amount to little more than simple disagreement with the wisdom of the School District’s policy. Tillett and her child do not suggest that they were the targets or victims of this alleged religious intolerance—indeed, they are Christians. Thus they are seeking to vindicate, not their MOSS v. SPARTANBURG COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 13 own rights, but the rights of others. In these circumstances, we conclude that Tillett and her child lack standing to challenge the School District’s released time policy. See Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249, 255 (1953) (Ordinarily, one may not claim standing in this Court to vindicate the constitutional rights of some third party). Our conclusion that Tillett was not injured by the School District’s policy requires the further conclusion that the Freedom From Religion Foundation also lacks standing. For an organization to have standing, it must establish that at least one identified member had suffered or would suffer harm from the defendant’s conduct. Summers, 555 U.S. at 498; see also Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 739 (1972) ([A]n organization whose members are injured may represent those members in a proceeding for judicial review. But a mere ‘interest in a problem,’ no matter how longstanding the interest and no matter how qualified the organization is in evaluating the problem, is not sufficient (citation omitted)). Because Tillett is a member of the Foundation and the Foundation has relied exclusively on her alleged injury to support its standing, its claim to standing rises or falls with Tillett. Thus, because Tillett lacks standing, so too does the Foundation.