Any day now, the Justices will announce their decision in a case called Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. This case presents a question about "taxpayer standing" to challenge the actions of Executive Branch officials on Establishment Clause grounds.
In March, Professor Sunstein published an op-ed in the Boston Globe ("Church, State, and Taxpayers") defending taxpayer standing in Establishment Clause cases, noting that "[t]he Constitution bans the establishment of a religion by government, and a major point of this ban is to ensure that the power to tax and spend would not be used to favor one religion over another or to support religion in general." At another blog, I wondered if one could make (pretty much) the same argument with respect to other provisions or structural features of the Constitution. (That is, if we need taxpayer standing to vindicate the point of the Establishment Clause, then why don't we need it, and why don't we have it, to vindicate the point of, say, "the separation of powers" or "the enumerated-powers principle"?)
I'm thinking now, though, about a different (though related) question: What, exactly, is the harm or (in "standing" terms) the "injury" that we think an "establishment of religion" works or imposes?