But the Establishment Clause isn’t the end-all, be-all of constitutionality: the Constitution is just as clear about the standing requirement. And in this case, the FFRF didn’t do anything at all to meet that bar; ultimately, they just argued that, because they would have been denied, standing was irrelevant. And the stupidity and laziness of that argument is underscored by the Seventh Circuit’s footnote 3: all they had to do, for standing purposes, was file their returns claiming the section 107 exclusion. Or file an amended return claiming it. Sure, they lose and they have to pay the unpaid taxes with interest. But they also overcome the bar to having their suit adjudicated.

I know that things like “standing” don’t really resonate with the general public (and I’ve read a couple blogs that treat this like it’s a substantive victory for the pastoral housing exclusion). But to a large degree, the validity of our judicial system rests on its procedural fairness—maybe the courts get things wrong sometimes, but at least they follow a fair, knowable procedure, giving litigants a legitimate shot at justice. By attempting to circumvent that (constitutionally-prescribed) procedure, the FFRF and the district court risked not only the precise decision that the Circuit delivered, but also undermining the very Constitution they try to enforce.