Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Lew, 773 F.3d 815

Plaintiffs Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) and co-presidents challenge 26 U.S.C. § 107 parsonage exemption (tax-free housing) for ministers.
They concede no standing to challenge § 107(1) (in-kind housing); challenge § 107(2) (rental allowance) instead.
District court found standing to challenge § 107(2) and held that subsection unconstitutional under Lemon v. Kurtzman.
Court of appeals holds plaintiffs lack standing to challenge § 107(2) and vacates/ remands to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
FFRF lacks associational standing since individual members must have standing; plaintiffs never requested the exemption or suffered denial.
Case procedural posture culminates in dismissal for lack of jurisdiction due to lack of standing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do plaintiffs have standing to challenge § 107(2)?	Gaylor/Barker argue associational standing and denial-based injury.	Government contends plaintiffs lack concrete injury and denial of benefit.	No standing; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

Luján v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (requires concrete injury and traceability for standing)
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (1982) (injury must be concrete and personal not just generalized grievance)
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968) (taxpayer standing to challenge specific expenditures; limited scope now)
Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984) (standing require personal injury or denial of equal treatment; cannot rely on group injury)
Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163 (1972) (standing requires personal injury from denial or benefit; mere presence of discrimination not enough)