On Dec. 2, Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) filed a lawsuit in federal court to block taxpayer funding for restoration of mission churches in California. The suit charges that the recently passed “California Missions Preservation Act” is tantamount to taxpayer-supported religion. The bill, signed by President Bush on Nov. 30, requires the Secretary of the Interior, currently Gale Norton, to make grants of up to $10 million to the California Missions Foundation to repair the missions and their artifacts. Many of these artifacts are religious symbols and artwork. Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) allege that the bill advances religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Roman Catholic Church owns 19 of the 21 missions the bill funds, in which it also celebrates mass. AU is concerned that this bill could be the forerunner of taxpayer-supported maintenance of “historic” houses of worship. However, California’s missions are the state’s most visited historical landmarks, drawing 5.3 million people each year, including hundreds of thousands of California fourth-graders who study mission history. All are state historic landmarks and six have been deemed national historic treasures. Additionally, federal money has been routinely spent before on historic structures where church services are held, including Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church, San Antonio’s Mission Concepcion, and Boston’s Old North Church. Opponents of the lawsuit state that the money will go to the California Missions Foundation, a private, nonprofit group which is undertaking a fund raising campaign to refurbish the structures. The missions require at least $39 million in repairs, and an additional $11 million for visitor improvements and conservation. The legislation allows for the disbursal of matching funds up to $10 million. The legislation was amended before it was passed to require the disbursement of funds be made contingent on a finding by the Justice Department that the statute does not violate the First Amendment.