{"id":52941,"date":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","date_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/supreme\/legal-commentary\/scripts\/david\/amar\/20070706-2.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"20070706-2","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/scripts\/david\/amar\/20070706-2.html","title":{"rendered":"FindLaw&#8217;s Writ &#8211; Amar: The Supreme Court Denies Plaintiffs Standing to Challenge Bush Administration Activities That They Allege Violated the Establishment Clause"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div class=\"wp-container-core-columns-is-layout-9d6595d7  fl-block-columns fl-sectionWithSidebar fl-container fl-flex fl-flex-wrap fl-gap30\">\n    \n    <div class=\"fl-page-articles   fl-block-column fl-section-main fl-section-main-full-width\">\n        <!-- Right Line of Links Section -->\n<td valign=\"top\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https://supreme.findlaw.com/static/f/images\/shared\/spacer.gif\" height=\"1\" width=\"472\">\n<table width=\"95%\" border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"5\" cellpadding=\"5\" align=\"center\">\n\n\n<tr valign=\"top\">\n<td colspan=\"2\">\n\n<!-- BEGIN PICTURE INSERTION -->\n\n<table width=\"95\" border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"5\" align=\"left\">\n<tr>\n<td width=\"16%\"><a href=\"\/legal-commentary\/amar\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https://supreme.findlaw.com/static/f/images\/writ\/vikram.amar.jpg\" border=\"0\"><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n<!-- BEGIN TITLE AND AUTHOR INSERTION -->\n\n&#8212;-<br><span class=\"title\"><h1>The Supreme Court Denies Plaintiffs Standing to Challenge Bush Administration Activities That They Allege Violated the Establishment Clause:<\/h1><\/span><br><span class=\"subtitle\">What This Decision, and Others This Term, Reveal About the Court<\/span><br>\n<a href=\"\/legal-commentary\/amar\" class=\"graybold\"><h2>By VIKRAM DAVID AMAR <\/h2><br><\/a>\n&#8212;-\n<div align=\"right\" class=\"smalltext-date\">Friday, Jul. 06, 2007<br>\n<\/div>\n<span class=\"smalltext\">\n\n\n  <p>One case that will help define this Supreme Court Term &#8211; and the current Court &#8211; is <a href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.findlaw.com\/court\/us-supreme-court\/551\/587.html\" class=\"left-link\" rel=\"noopener\">Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc<\/a>., handed down last week. The plaintiffs challenged various conferences, speeches, and events the Bush Administration had organized and sponsored, arguing that these activities were intended to and did in fact favor religious faith-based providers of social services over secular social service providers.  That kind of preference, they said, violates <a href=\"https:\/\/constitution.findlaw.com\/amendment1.html\" class=\"left-link\" rel=\"noopener\">the Establishment Clause<\/a>. <\/p>  <p> In this column, I&#8217;ll briefly discuss <i>Hein<\/i>&#8216;s ruling, then go on to consider how it reflects upon the Court, and this Term.<\/p>  <!-- START TABLE FOR RELATED -->\n<table width=\"50%\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td>\n    <!-- 230x230 AD -->\n    <center>\n<script language=\"Javascript\">dart_call(\"300x250\", \"ptile=2\", 0); <\/script>\n    <\/center><br>\n    <!-- END 230x230 AD -->\n<\/td><\/tr><\/table>\n<!-- END TABLE FOR RELATED -->\n<p><b>The Ruling in Hein, and How It Might Be Circumvented<\/b><\/p>  <p>Last week, the Court decided that plaintiffs lacked &#8220;standing&#8221; to seek redress in the federal courts under <a href=\"https:\/\/constitution.findlaw.com\/article3.html\" class=\"left-link\" rel=\"noopener\">Article III of the Constitution<\/a>. They had brought suit only in their capacity as federal taxpayers who objected to the federal monies being used for the allegedly unconstitutional Administration activities, and, the Court said, that fact was not enough to form the basis for standing.<\/p>  <p>In its ruling, the Court cemented narrow limitations on so-called &#8220;taxpayer standing.&#8221;  In the past, this tool had generally been unavailable to constitutional plaintiffs because of the Court&#8217;s fears about its potential breadth, yet it had been of some utility to persons who allege federal violations of the Establishment Clause.<\/p>  <p>After <i>Hein<\/i>, in order to invoke &#8220;taxpayer standing,&#8221; an Establishment Clause plaintiff must allege more than that the federal government has expended some funds in a way that allegedly violates the Clause. She must also allege that the funds are being spent pursuant to a particular Congressional statute that directs that the funds be spent in the (allegedly) unconstitutional way. <\/p>  <p>In <i>Hein<\/i>, the challenged expenditures were undertaken pursuant to broad executive discretion, rather than a specific Congressional direction. In such circumstances, the Court ruled, earlier decisions by the Court that had opened the standing door a bit for Establishment Clause challenges &#8211; most notably <a href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.findlaw.com\/court\/us-supreme-court\/392\/83.html\" class=\"left-link\" rel=\"noopener\"><i>Flast v. Cohen<\/i><\/a> &#8212; simply do not apply.<\/p>  <p>To be sure, the <i>Hein<\/i> ruling will have a non-trivial effect on Establishment Clause litigation going forward. But the obstacle it erects might be circumventable in some settings.<\/p>  <p>That&#8217;s because  many challenges similar to the one brought by the <i>Hein<\/i> plaintiffs might be brought by persons who base their standing not upon their taxpayer status, but rather upon the way the government&#8217;s religious favoritism affects them particularly. <\/p>  <a href=\"#continue\">Column continues below \u2193<\/a>\n<script language=\"JavaScript\" src=\"http:\/\/pagead2.googlesyndication.com\/pagead\/show_ads.js\">\n<\/script>\n<a name=\"continue\"><\/a>\n<p>For example, secular social service providers who felt they might be losing government contracts because of the allegedly favorable treatment given to religious organizations might be able to plead facts sufficient to establish standing in a case like <i>Hein<\/i>. Time will tell.<\/p>   <p><b>The <\/b><b>Current Court<\/b><b>: Conservative-Leaning, and Likely to Stay that Way<\/b><\/p>  <p>But perhaps more interesting than its implications for Establishment Clause challenges, is the way <i>Hein<\/i> illustrates important features of the current Court.<\/p>  <p>First, and most obviously, the Roberts Court &#8211; like the result in <i>Hein<\/i> &#8211; tends to be ideologically conservative. We shouldn&#8217;t be surprised by that. When Justice O&#8217;Connor was replaced by Justice Alito two Terms ago, every knowledgeable analyst predicted a perceptible move to the right. That leaning will stay with us even if a Democrat wins the White House in 2008, because none of the five members of the Court who make up the conservative majority (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy) is likely to depart anytime soon. <\/p>  <p>Indeed, the person most likely to leave the Court next, given his age (87), is Justice Stevens, one of the Court&#8217;s most liberal members. If Justice Stevens were to be replaced with a liberal voice, that would simply hold the current 5-4 conservative advantage in place; it would not alter it. Moreover, if Justice Stevens (or another member of the liberal minority) were to leave, and be replaced by a more conservative jurist, then the conservative drift might pick up speed.<\/p>  <p><b>Even Beyond Its Many Split Rulings, This is a Deeply Divided Court<\/b><\/p>  <p>Second, the Roberts Court is often fractured. During his confirmation hearings, Chief Justice Roberts expressed hopes about reducing the number of rulings with multiple opinions, but that has proven overly optimistic. This past Term, 24 of the Court&#8217;s 73 rulings, or more than one-third, were resolved 5-4, and often included sharply worded dissents.<\/p>  <p>Moreover, within these 5-4 rulings, the Justices often exhibited even more division as to the proper legal approach that should govern the dispute. Sometimes, they fell into a 2-3-4 pattern. For example, in <i>Hein,<\/i> Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would have eliminated taxpayer standing altogether, and thus joined a 5-justice majority rejecting it in this particular case as well. <\/p>  <p>Sometimes, they fell into a 4-1-4 pattern. For example, in <a href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.findlaw.com\/court\/us-supreme-court\/551\/701.html\" class=\"left-link\" rel=\"noopener\">the public school integration cases<\/a>, Justice Kennedy&#8217;s opinion left more operating room open for schools seeking to ensure racial balance, than did the writing in favor of the five-Justice majority&#8217;s result that was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito.  In short, there are differences of opinion within the conservative majority, with Justice Thomas and (only slightly less often) Justice Scalia staking out the most conservative position. <\/p>  <p>Third, these patterns show clearly that Justice Kennedy is the fulcrum of the Court. He was in the majority in each and every one of the 5-4 rulings this year, and he voted in the majority in 69 of the 72 cases in which he participated. The Court goes as he goes; his often nuanced voice (which critics on both sides sometimes attack as being inadequately grounded in constitutional principle) regularly becomes the holdings for the Court that other courts and litigants must heed.<\/p>  <p>Nor was Kennedy&#8217;s centrality hard to predict. Analysts expected that Justice O&#8217;Connor&#8217;s departure would leave the &#8220;center&#8221; alone for Justice Kennedy. But the numbers this Term bearing out Justice Kennedy&#8217;s role are nonetheless striking.<\/p>  <p><b>What Hein Teaches Us About Standing Doctrine: Confusion in Underlying Establishment Clause Law Has Spread to Related Standing Doctrine<\/b><\/p>   <p>Fourth, the <i>Hein<\/i> case illustrates how substantive murkiness and confusion in an area of law often screws up the law of &#8220;standing,&#8221; and vice versa. The <i>Hein<\/i> majority is afraid that if plaintiffs can challenge, on Establishment Clause grounds, every federal expenditure, then the courts will be flooded with claims contesting virtually everything an Administration does.<\/p>  <p>But this fear &#8211; which seems exaggerated in any event &#8211; is generated only by the utter confusion that has characterized substantive Establishment Clause jurisprudence. The Court, in giving meaning to the Establishment Clause, has not settled on any coherent approach or set of approaches. Indeed, many of the rulings (like <b>those a few years back involving the Ten Commandments&#8217; displays<\/b>) seem hopeless contextual to the point of being ad hoc.<\/p>  <p>If the Court were less fractured and more coherent on its approach to what the Establishment Clause means on the merits, then it wouldn&#8217;t have nearly as much need to manipulate standing rules in arbitrary ways. Clear rules would go a long way to ameliorate &#8220;floodgates&#8221; fears, as plaintiffs seeking to file questionable suits would know when they would, and would not, lose at the trial court level.<\/p>  <p><b>The Modern Court Should Look More to Principle, and Less to Precedent<\/b><\/p>  <p>Finally, <i>Hein<\/i> illustrates the modern Court&#8217;s tendency to ground its constitutional decisions too much in past judicial precedent as opposed to constitutional principle and coherence. <\/p>  <p>The line the <i>Hein<\/i> Court draws &#8211; between Congress and Executive programs to promote religion &#8211; makes absolutely no sense. For starters, as the Court has itself noted in other cases, there is a provision the Constitution&#8217;s Appropriations Clause mandates that &#8220;no Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriation made by Law.&#8221; In other words, all expenditures from the Treasury must be approved by statute. Thus, any Executive program, to be funded, must in a sense be a Congressional program too.<\/p>  <p>The reason for this command, the Court has said, is simple. Expenditures of federal money must be attributable to decisions made by Congress, so that democratic accountability is ensured: &#8220;[T]he Clause has a . . . fundamental and comprehensive purpose &#8211;. . . to assure that public funds will be spent according to the letter of the difficult judgments reached by Congress as to the common good and not according to the individual favor of Government agents. . . .&#8221;<\/p>  <p>But if all expenditures owe their legitimacy to Congressional authorization, then it makes little sense to distinguish between expenditures Congress explicitly directed, and those which arise from Executive discretion. After all, Congress can be assumed to agree with the latter, else it would cut off or limit the appropriations.<\/p>  <p>Moreover, and relatedly, as Justice Stevens&#8217; dissent in <i>Hein<\/i> argues, no one has suggested that the Establishment Clause&#8217;s anti-favoritism norm doesn&#8217;t bind the Executive branch, nor that the founders of the First Amendment were unconcerned with <br> Executive attempts to mandate a national religion.<\/p>  <p>Indeed, Chief Justice Roberts&#8217;s opinion delivering the judgment for the Court in <i>Hein<\/i> doesn&#8217;t even try to defend the line it has drawn. All Chief Justice Roberts says is that the language of <i>Flast<\/i><i> v. Cohen<\/i> &#8212; the case in which the taxpayer standing exception in Establishment Clause cases was created &#8212; seems to distinguish between Congressional and Executive decisions, and subsequent cases have seemed to incorporate that line.  <\/p>  <p>But why is that enough, if no one can defend the line as making any legal sense? <\/p>  <p>True, stare decisis, or respect for precedent, serves some important ends, like protecting reliance and promoting stability in the law. But it&#8217;s hard to see any reliance on <i>Flast<\/i>. Eliminating the line &#8211; and extending taxpayer standing to challenge executive programs &#8211; wouldn&#8217;t seem to violate anyone&#8217;s expectations. (Nor, as I mentioned above, would it be unmanageable, especially if the Establishment Clause jurisprudence on the merits were straightened out.) <\/p>  <p>Nevertheless, the modern Court seems not to ask whether (some) of the Court&#8217;s past rulings are defensible. Rather, it asks only whether there is some compelling reason to abandon them. I tend to agree with Justice Scalia&#8217;s suggestion in <i>Hein<\/i> that avoiding &#8220;[in]sane&#8221; and &#8220;absurd&#8221; lines should be reason enough. <\/p>\n\n\n<\/span>\n\n<hr size=\"1\">\n<p class=\"authorfoot\">\n\n<!-- BEGIN AUTHORS FOOTNOTE -->\n<a name=\"bio\"><\/a>\nkram David Amar is a professor of law at the University of California, Hastings College of Law in San Francisco. He is a 1988 graduate of the Yale Law School, and a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun. He is a co-author, along with William Cohen and Jonathan Varat, of a major constitutional law casebook, and a co-author of several volumes of the Wright &amp; Miller treatise on federal practice and procedure. Before teaching, Professor Amar spent a few years at the firm of Gibson, Dunn &amp; Crutcher.\n<br><br>\n\n<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n<\/td><div class=\"was-this-helpful\">\n    <div\n            class=\"was-this-helpful__question-container\"\n            aria-labelledby=\"was-this-helpful__question\"\n            role=\"group\"\n    >\n        <span\n                id=\"was-this-helpful__question\"\n                class=\"was-this-helpful__question fl-text-lg-bold\"\n        >Was this helpful?<\/span>\n        <button\n                class=\"was-this-helpful__button fl-text-sm\"\n                aria-label=\"Yes\"\n                value=\"yes\"\n        >\n            <span class=\"was-this-helpful__button-text fl-text-bold\">Yes<\/span>\n            <i class=\"was-this-helpful__button-icon\">\n                <svg width=\"22\" height=\"22\" viewBox=\"0 0 22 22\" fill=\"none\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\">\n                    <g id=\"thumbs-up\" clip-path=\"url(#clip0_604_3418)\">\n                        <path id=\"Vector\"\n                              d=\"M6 21H3C2.46957 21 1.96086 20.7893 1.58579 20.4142C1.21071 20.0391 1 19.5304 1 19V12C1 11.4696 1.21071 10.9609 1.58579 10.5858C1.96086 10.2107 2.46957 10 3 10H6M13 8V4C13 3.20435 12.6839 2.44129 12.1213 1.87868C11.5587 1.31607 10.7956 1 10 1L6 10V21H17.28C17.7623 21.0055 18.2304 20.8364 18.5979 20.524C18.9654 20.2116 19.2077 19.7769 19.28 19.3L20.66 10.3C20.7035 10.0134 20.6842 9.72068 20.6033 9.44225C20.5225 9.16382 20.3821 8.90629 20.1919 8.68751C20.0016 8.46873 19.7661 8.29393 19.5016 8.17522C19.2371 8.0565 18.9499 7.99672 18.66 8H13Z\"\n                              stroke=\"#666666\" stroke-width=\"2\" stroke-linecap=\"round\"\n                              stroke-linejoin=\"round\"><\/path>\n                    <\/g>\n                    <defs>\n                        <clipPath id=\"clip0_604_3418\">\n                            <rect width=\"22\" height=\"22\" fill=\"white\"><\/rect>\n                        <\/clipPath>\n                    <\/defs>\n                <\/svg>\n            <\/i>\n        <\/button>\n        <button\n                class=\"was-this-helpful__button fl-text-sm\"\n                aria-label=\"No\"\n                value=\"no\"\n        >\n            <span class=\"was-this-helpful__button-text fl-text-bold\">No<\/span>\n            <i class=\"was-this-helpful__button-icon\">\n                <svg width=\"22\" height=\"22\" viewBox=\"0 0 22 22\" fill=\"none\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\">\n                    <g id=\"thumbs-down\" clip-path=\"url(#clip0_604_3423)\">\n                        <path id=\"Vector\"\n                              d=\"M16 0.999995H18.67C19.236 0.989986 19.7859 1.18813 20.2154 1.55681C20.645 1.9255 20.9242 2.43905 21 3V10C20.9242 10.5609 20.645 11.0745 20.2154 11.4432C19.7859 11.8119 19.236 12.01 18.67 12H16M9.00003 14V18C9.00003 18.7956 9.3161 19.5587 9.87871 20.1213C10.4413 20.6839 11.2044 21 12 21L16 12V0.999995H4.72003C4.2377 0.994543 3.76965 1.16359 3.40212 1.47599C3.0346 1.78839 2.79235 2.22309 2.72003 2.7L1.34003 11.7C1.29652 11.9866 1.31586 12.2793 1.39669 12.5577C1.47753 12.8362 1.61793 13.0937 1.80817 13.3125C1.99842 13.5313 2.23395 13.7061 2.49846 13.8248C2.76297 13.9435 3.05012 14.0033 3.34003 14H9.00003Z\"\n                              stroke=\"#666666\" stroke-width=\"2\" stroke-linecap=\"round\" stroke-linejoin=\"round\"\/>\n                    <\/g>\n                    <defs>\n                        <clipPath id=\"clip0_604_3423\">\n                            <rect width=\"22\" height=\"22\" fill=\"white\"\/>\n                        <\/clipPath>\n                    <\/defs>\n                <\/svg>\n            <\/i>\n        <\/button>\n    <\/div>\n    <span class=\"was-this-helpful__taken-action fl-text-sm-bold\"><\/span>\n    <div class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-container\">\n        <div class=\"was-this-helpful__choose-option-message\" role=\"status\">\n            <p class=\"was-this-helpful__choose-option-message-text\"><\/p>\n        <\/div>\n        <form class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-form\">\n            <div class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback was-this-helpful__feedback--positive\">\n                <fieldset>\n                    <legend class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\" tabindex=\"0\">Why was this helpful?<\/legend>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--understandable\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"positive-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Easy to understand\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--understandable\"\n                        >Easy to understand<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--solved-problem\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"positive-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Solved my problem\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--solved-problem\"\n                        >Solved my problem<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--other\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"positive-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Other\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--other\"\n                        >Other<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                <\/fieldset>\n            <\/div>\n            <div class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback was-this-helpful__feedback--negative\">\n                <fieldset>\n                    <legend class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\" tabindex=\"0\">Why was this not helpful?<\/legend>\n                    <div class=\"was-this-helpful__choose-option-message\" role=\"status\">\n                        <p class=\"was-this-helpful__choose-option-message-text\"><\/p>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--missing-info\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"negative-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Missing Information\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--missing-info\"\n                        >Missing the information I need<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--complicated\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"negative-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Too complicated\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--complicated\"\n                        >Too complicated \/ too many steps<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--dated\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"negative-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Out of date\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--dated\"\n                        >Out of date<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--negative-other\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"negative-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Other\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--negative-other\"\n                        >Other<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                <\/fieldset>\n            <\/div>\n            <div class=\"was-this-helpful__form-buttons-container\">\n                <button\n                    class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-button was-this-helpful__feedback-button--positive at-feedback-submit fl-button secondary\"\n                    type=\"submit\"\n                >\n                    <span class=\"fl-button-content\">Submit<\/span>\n                    <i\n                        class=\"fa fa-angle-right medium\"\n                        aria-hidden=\"true\"\n                    ><\/i>\n                <\/button>\n                <button\n                    class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-button was-this-helpful__feedback-button--cancel fl-button primary disabled\"\n                    type=\"reset\"\n                >\n                    <span class=\"fl-button-content\">Cancel<\/span>\n                    <i\n                        class=\"fa fa-times-circle medium\"\n                        aria-hidden=\"true\"\n                    ><\/i>\n                <\/button>\n            <\/div>\n        <\/form>\n    <\/div>\n    <div class=\"was-this-helpful__thank-you-message\" role=\"status\">\n        <i class=\"was-this-helpful__thank-you-message-icon fa fa-check\"><\/i>\n        <p class=\"was-this-helpful__thank-you-message-text\" aria-live=\"polite\"><\/p>\n    <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n    <\/div>\n    \n    <div class=\"fl-block-column fl-section-sidebar\">\n        \n    <\/div>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"parent":52937,"menu_order":0,"template":"app\/Http\/Controllers\/Templates\/ArticlePageController.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_stopmodifiedupdate":false,"_modified_date":"","_cloudinary_featured_overwrite":false},"class_list":["post-52941","supreme","type-supreme","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/supreme\/52941","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/supreme"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/supreme"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/supreme\/52937"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52941"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}