A divided Supreme Court yesterday stopped an atheist group's lawsuit against President Bush's faith-based initiative, ruling that the plaintiffs do not have standing in the case and thus enabling Bush to continue a program he created by executive order without congressional approval.

The decision was made on a day when the high court showed its increasingly conservative tilt, approving restrictions on student speech, loosening limits on corporate- and union-paid advertising close to Election Day, and siding with developers in an environmental suit.

All four cases were decided by 5 -to- 4 votes, with both of Bush's picks -- Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who replaced the late William Rehnquist, and Justice Samuel Alito, who was confirmed after Sandra Day O'Connor retired -- siding with the majority. Rehnquist was a solid conservative, while O'Connor was widely viewed as a centrist swing vote.

The decisions show that "President Bush got exactly what he hoped for, a court substantially further to the right," said Tom Goldstein, a Harvard Law School lecturer on Supreme Court litigation who has also argued cases before the high court. If O'Connor were still on the court, he said, all four cases might have been decided differently.

The faith-based case is particularly important, Goldstein said, because it protects Bush's programs from legal challenges and indicates that the court will be "less concerned about keeping church and state separate, so later decisions will be more sympathetic to government's cooperating with religious institutions."

The plaintiffs in the case, including taxpayers from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, had argued that the funding of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, violated the established separation of church and state, putting the government in the position of steering hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to groups with strong religious affiliations. The plaintiffs argued that Bush was spending taxpayer funds to hold conferences at which religious groups were urged to apply for federal grants.

But the Supreme Court, while not ruling directly on the First Amendment church-state issue, found that the taxpayers who sued the government can not do so simply because they pay taxes.

Writing for the majority, Alito said the federal budget is so big "it is a complete fiction to argue that an unconstitutional federal expenditure causes an individual federal taxpayer any measurable economic harm. And if every federal taxpayer could sue to challenge any government expenditure, the federal courts would cease to function as courts of law and would be cast in the role of general complaint bureaus."

Alito noted that the Supreme Court had previously made an exception under which taxpayers could sue if Congress appropriates funds in a way that violates the separation of church and state. But in this case, Alito wrote, the faith-based initiative funds were "paid for out of general Executive Branch appropriations" and therefore were not directly funded by Congress.

In a unanimous ruling, the court said that "hard-sell tactics directed at middle school students could lead to exploitation, distort competition between high school teams and foster an environment in which athletics are prized more highly than academics."

Games have rules, Justice John Paul Stevens said for the court. "It is only fair that Brentwood follow them," Stevens said.

Brentwood argued that the restriction violated its free-speech rights, even though it voluntarily joined the association.

The dispute arose from a letter that Brentwood's football coach sent to a dozen eighth-graders in 1997, inviting them to attend spring training at Brentwood. The students already had been accepted and signed enrollment contracts for the fall.

"This is effectively a national health crisis," said Eldo Bergman, director of the Texas Reading Institute, a Houston company that tutors hundreds of children who are not getting the help they need in public schools. "There's an awful lot of wasted human potential."

The Houston Independent School District is one of the most egregious offenders, with only 256 of its 200,000 students in dyslexia programs this year.

What's more, 70 percent of HISD's identified dyslexic students are concentrated in the district's more affluent west and central regions and 40 percent are white — about five times the percentage of white students districtwide. Although the disability doesn't discriminate, minority students are significantly underrepresented.

"Our numbers are low; we admit it," said Noelia Garza, assistant superintendent for special populations. "We have to make a more concerted effort to get the word out to parents. ... We may need to improve the way we communicate to teachers and administrators the process."

The district plans a $532,000 "dyslexia awareness campaign" in August with brochures, buttons, bookmarks, TV programs, a Web site and additional staff training.

Neighboring districts haven't performed much better. Less than 1 percent of students in the area are enrolled in a state-required dyslexia program, according to a Houston Chronicle analysis of data for more than 1 million school children.

"That's terrible," said Geraldine Miller, chairwoman of the State Board of Education, who championed Texas' dyslexia law. "Of all places, Houston ought to be the role model."

"If rigorous rules like the one applied today are thought to be inequitable, Congress may authorize the courts" to adopt more lenient rules, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority.

In dissent, Justice David H. Souter wrote: "It is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way." He faulted the majority for "condoning this bait and switch."

It is the second time in a month that the court split along conservative-liberal lines over an issue of deadlines. In a 5-4 ruling that was seen as a setback for women's rights, the court overturned a pay-discrimination verdict in favor of the lone female supervisor at a Goodyear Tire plant because she had not pointed to unfair pay decisions within the time limit of 180 days prior to the filing of her suit.

In the case decided Thursday, Kevin Bowles was convicted of murder in 1999 for taking part in the beating of another man, and his appeals were rejected by the Ohio courts. His initial appeal was rejected by a federal district judge.

His lawyer sought to reopen his appeal, and under a federal rule of civil procedure he had 14 days to file a notice. The judge granted his motion to reopen the appeal on Feb. 10, 2004, but inexplicably said his notice must be filed by Feb. 27.

Bowles' notice was filed on Feb. 26, the day before the judge's deadline. But this was 16 days after he had granted the motion, or two days beyond the legal deadline.

State prosecutors insisted Bowles' appeal should be thrown out because of the missed deadline. And they argued that the appeals court had no legal authority to hear his case.

The appeals court agreed, and the high court upheld that decision Thursday in Bowles vs. Russell.

"Time limits for filing a notice of appeal are jurisdictional in nature," Thomas said, and therefore cannot be waived by judges for reasons for fairness. "We hold that [Bowles'] untimely notice — even though filed in reliance upon a District Court's order — deprived the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction." He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito.

Souter called the court's handling of the issue "puzzling" and "incoherent."

"Congress put no jurisdictional tag on the time limit here," he said, and the court was wrong to add one.

Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined the dissent.

The case involved the city's efforts to collect $16.4 million in unpaid property taxes and interest from India and $2.1 million from Mongolia for their missions at the United Nations.

Under New York law, foreign governments have tax exemptions for the diplomatic mission section of their properties used exclusively for diplomatic offices and for the quarters of certain diplomats.

But the city says the government must pay taxes for the space that houses lower-level employees. The two governments refused to pay the taxes and the city sued. The foreign governments sought to dismiss the lawsuits.

Justice Clarence Thomas concluded in the court's majority opinion that the two foreign governments are not immune from the lawsuits under a 1976 federal law, a decision that allows the cases to go forward.

Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer dissented. "If Congress had intended the statute to waive sovereign immunity in tax litigation, I think it would have said so," Stevens wrote.