As noted at the Religion Clause, the 3rd Circuit Court ruled that a group of Navy Chaplains lacked standing to sue over the alleged preferential treatment of Catholic Chaplains in the Navy. The court did not rule on the merits of the case, and one judge dissented.

The decision is interesting in its relation to the ongoing lawsuit against the Defense Department brought by Jeremy Hall and the MRFF.  The government has alleged that Hall (and thus the MRFF) also lacks standing for similar reasons listed by the 3rd Circuit.

For example,

As the Supreme Court has often stated, mere personal offense to government action does not give rise to standing to sue.

When plaintiffs are not themselves affected by a government action except through their abstract offense at the message allegedly conveyed by that action, they have not shown injury-in-fact to bring an Establishment Clause claim, at least outside the distinct context of the religious display and prayer cases.

Under plaintiffs’ theory, every government action that allegedly violates the Establishment Clause could be re-characterized as a governmental message promoting religion. And therefore everyone who becomes aware of the “message” would have standing to sue.