the money held by inmates in their deposit accounts and retains the interest, and he contends this practice violates the Fifth Amendment because the inmates have a property interest in the interest earned on their money. In other words, DeBrew claims the defendants took money that belongs to him, which is a “concrete and particularized” injury. The cases relied upon by the defendants — such as those describing the principle of “taxpayer standing” — are inap-posite because they involve plaintiffs who raised generalized grievances about the way the government spent money it had lawfully obtained, rather than plaintiffs who alleged the government unlawfully took their money. See, e.g., Hein v. Freedom From Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 599, 127 S.Ct. 2553, 168 L.Ed.2d 424 (2007) (<HOLDING>). The defendants next argue DeBrew failed to
recognizing that police officers generally do not need warrant to search person they have lawfully arrested holding that plaintiffs have standing to assert establishment clause violation because in part a cross led plaintiffs to alter their behavior holding plaintiffs are not deprived of a liberty interest because they cannot have the best job in their field holding that bulldozers and backhoes were point sources since they collected into windrows and piles material that may ultimately have found its way back into the waters holding plaintiffs do not have standing to assert their claim  that having paid lawfully collected taxes into the federal treasury at some point they have a continuing legally cognizable interest in ensuring that those funds are not used by the government in a way that violates the constitution