Lordsville was a small, agricultural village with a population of 400 . It was a quiet, conservative town, and $90 \%$ of the inhabitants belonged to the Lordsville Church of Jesus, a whitewashed frame building located on Lordsville's main street. The Lordsville Village Council consisted of five members, all of whom were members of the Lordsville Church of Jesus. The Council unanimously appropriated $ 350$ to pay Mower to mow the lawn of the Lordsville Church of Jesus for a year. Mower was a 15-year-old resident of Lordsville and a member of the Lordsville Church of Jesus whose father had been killed the previous year when he was struck by lightning. Curmudgeon, a Lordsville resident, lived in a tiny house and paid only $200 per year in village and county property taxes, but he was incensed that any of it should go to support what he called "a bunch of holier-thanthou, superstitious, holy-rollers." Curmudgeon filed suit in federal district court to strike down the Council's appropriation to mow the church lawn. Should the court entertain Curmudgeon's suit?
A. No, because Curmudgeon paid so little in taxes that his interest in the matter, if any, is too minimal.
B. No, because taxpayers lack standing to sue over appropriations by duly constituted legislative bodies.
C. Yes, because a taxpayer may sue under the authority of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause if a fund into which he has paid is being used for religious purposes.
D. Yes, because taxpayers have standing to sue when questions involving constitutional rights are at issue.
Choose A, B, C or D as your solution.
C