The Supreme Court this summer evidenced its utter disdain for civil rights and the separation of church and state in two notable decisions. In Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, the Court held that the executive branch of the federal government can spend money on religion as it sees fit. No taxpayer can challenge such spending as a violation of the Establishment Clause.

There is an ancient legal maxim that there is no right without a remedy. In this case, the Supreme Court held that there is no remedy when the executive branch violates the Establishment Clause by giving money to churches. The case challenged the president’s “faith-based initiative,” which provides funding directly to churches. Serious constitutional questions remain about the legality of this program, but these questions may never be answered, since the Supreme Court gave the executive branch unfettered discretion to determine whether its spending on religion is constitutional. If there is no remedy, then it follows that there is no right. In other words, the Establishment Clause no longer functions to prevent the president from spending on religion.

Why might a president wish to spend money on religion? To gain political advantage? In colonial America, state governments routinely funded churches and clergy salaries, as well as religion teachers. Now the president can spend as much as he wants on churches, so long as the funds are discretionary, and were not specifically voted for that purpose by Congress. Taxpayers still have the right to challenge Congress, should it appropriate money to pay for religion.

The potential mischief from the lack of a check on the abuse of power cannot be underestimated. This decision is extraordinary and contradicts the basic principles of American democracy, undermining not only the separation of church and state, but the separation of powers, and the idea of checks and balances on each branch of government. The decision means no more checks on the check-writing power of the president to fund religion.

In a second case, the Court showed its hostility to employment discrimination claims, throwing out a claim by Lilly Ledbetter that Goodyear discriminated against her by paying her far less than similarly situated male managers. The Court held that Ledbetter’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations, because it was based on old pay raise decisions. Ledbetter argued that her claim was timely, because it was filed promptly when she discovered that she was being paid far less than male managers in similar positions. She insisted that it was the present discrimination she was contesting, not ancient decisions.

The Court’s decision means that workers lose the right to pursue discrimination charges unless they discover the violation within as little as six months of a discriminatory decision. This is likely to impact literally thousands of workers, including some who suffer from religious discrimination.

For those who care about basic liberties and civil rights, these recent Supreme Court decisions ought to serve as a wake-up call. It is time to actively advance our freedoms in Congress and in the states, because the federal courts have turned in an unwelcome direction.