The justices did not decide the merits of the case, ruling instead that the secularist group did not have standing to sue the Bush administration, since they could not demonstrate any specific injury to themselves.

"The plaintiffs contend that they meet the standing requirements of Article III of the Constitution because they pay federal taxes. It has long been establi shed, however, that the payment of taxes is generally not enough to establish standing to challenge an action taken by the Federal Government," wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. in his majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony M. Kennedy.

"If every federal taxpayer could sue to challenge any Government expenditure, the federal courts would cease to function as courts of law and would be cast in the role of general complaint bureaus," Justice Alito wrote, adding that Congress could also check an administration that committed some of the "parade of horribles" the plaintiffs claimed could happen.

Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer disagreed, saying in their dissent that the court should have allowed the challenge to proceed.

The majority "closes the door on these taxpayers because the Executive Branch, and not the Legislative Branch, caused their injury," wrote Justice Souter. "I see no basis for this distinction."

Jay Hein, director of the White House's faith-based office, said the conferences in question are training seminars for nonprofits of all kinds, and that religious groups usually make up about half of the invited parties. He added that religious groups receiving or applying for federal funds are instructed at the seminars on how to avoid promoting their religion with federal dollars, precisely to comply with the establishment clause.

Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Madison, Wis.-based nonprofit group, said the administration conferences were designed to promote, and had the effect of promoting, religious groups.

Legal precedent allows taxpayers to sue in response to a congressional appropriation of specific funds which specifically injures them. Yesterday's decision narrows an exception - the 1968 Flast v. Cohen ruling - that allowed taxpayers to file suit against a limited number of actions by the executive branch without having to prove personal injury.

Justice Scalia, with Justice Thomas joining him, wrote a separate opinion that said he favored doing away with the Flast loophole altogether.

Nonetheless, Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, said the ruling's narrowing of the Flast exception "eliminates an entire body of litigation," such as lawsuits against minister-led prayer at a president's inauguration.

"It really has changed the landscape," Mr. Sekulow said. "It's very sweeping in scope. ... Under no area of law can you file a lawsuit just because you disagree with something the government is doing."

President Bush called the ruling "a substantial victory for efforts by Americans to more effectively aid our neighbors in need of help."

However, the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, downplayed the significance of the court's ruling, and said that "the legal assault on the constitutionality of the faith-based programs will continue."

"This is not a disastrous decision for all church-state litigation," Mr. Lynn said.

END