Taxpayer standing debate
What is Taxpayer Standing?
Taxpayer standing refers to the ability of a taxpayer to bring a lawsuit in court to challenge a government action that allegedly misuses taxpayer funds or violates constitutional provisions. Generally, courts are reluctant to grant taxpayer standing because the taxpayer's interest is considered too generalized and indirect—similar to the interest of any citizen.
The rationale is that allowing every taxpayer to sue on government expenditures would flood the courts with cases and blur the separation of powers by turning courts into overseers of political decisions.
The Key Principle: Flast v. Cohen Exception
The landmark case in taxpayer standing is Flast v. Cohen (1968), which carved out a narrow exception to the general rule against taxpayer standing, allowing taxpayers to challenge federal expenditures if they can show a logical link to a constitutional limitation on Congress’s taxing and spending powers.
Important Cases in Taxpayer Standing Debate
1. Frothingham v. Mellon (1923)
Facts: A taxpayer challenged the constitutionality of a federal act funding maternal and child health programs.
Issue: Does a taxpayer have standing to challenge federal expenditures?
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the taxpayer had no standing.
Reasoning: The Court stated the interest of a taxpayer is too "remote, fluctuating, and uncertain" to give them standing. The harm alleged was a generalized grievance shared by many citizens, not a direct injury.
Significance: Established the general rule against taxpayer standing.
2. Flast v. Cohen (1968)
Facts: Taxpayers challenged federal funding given to religious schools under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Issue: Do taxpayers have standing to challenge government expenditures that allegedly violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
Ruling: The Court held that taxpayers did have standing in this limited circumstance.
Reasoning: The Court created a two-pronged test for taxpayer standing in Establishment Clause cases:
There must be a logical link between the taxpayer’s status and the type of legislative enactment challenged (i.e., a challenge to Congress’s taxing and spending power).
There must be a nexus between taxpayer status and the precise constitutional infringement (in this case, the Establishment Clause).
Significance: Created an exception to Frothingham and allowed taxpayer standing in certain Establishment Clause cases involving federal spending.
3. Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State (1982)
Facts: Taxpayers challenged the transfer of federal property to a religious college, alleging violation of the Establishment Clause.
Issue: Did taxpayers have standing under the Flast exception?
Ruling: The Court held that the taxpayers did not have standing.
Reasoning: The Court ruled the transfer was not a "taxing and spending" action but a property transfer, so the Flast test did not apply.
Significance: Clarified and limited the scope of Flast to direct challenges to congressional taxing and spending powers, not other government actions.
4. Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation (2007)
Facts: Taxpayers challenged the use of executive branch funds for faith-based initiatives.
Issue: Does the Flast exception apply to executive branch spending programs funded by general appropriations?
Ruling: The Court held taxpayers lacked standing.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Flast exception applies only to congressional exercises of the taxing and spending power, not to executive discretionary spending.
Significance: Further narrowed taxpayer standing, limiting it to legislative (Congressional) spending decisions.
5. Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn (2011)
Facts: Taxpayers challenged a state tax credit program that benefited religious schools.
Issue: Do taxpayers have standing to challenge state tax credits under the Establishment Clause?
Ruling: The Supreme Court held taxpayers lacked standing.
Reasoning: The Court distinguished between tax credits and direct government expenditures. Tax credits are seen as private donations and thus not direct government spending.
Significance: The Court declined to extend Flast to state tax credits, further restricting taxpayer standing at the state level.
6. Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State (1982) (to emphasize the point):
The Court denied standing because the government action was not an exercise of the taxing and spending power, reinforcing that Flast applies only to direct congressional spending challenges.
Summary of the Taxpayer Standing Doctrine
| Case | Outcome | Key Point |
|---|---|---|
| Frothingham v. Mellon (1923) | No standing | Generalized grievance is insufficient |
| Flast v. Cohen (1968) | Standing allowed (narrow exception) | Two-pronged test for Establishment Clause cases involving congressional spending |
| Valley Forge (1982) | No standing | Flast exception limited to taxing/spending, not property transfer |
| Hein v. Freedom (2007) | No standing | Flast applies only to congressional taxing/spending, not executive |
| Arizona Christian (2011) | No standing | Tax credits are not direct government expenditures, so no standing |
Additional Notes:
Why is taxpayer standing limited? Courts want to avoid turning every taxpayer into a watchdog for government spending, which would overwhelm judicial resources and upset the separation of powers.
What kinds of claims can taxpayers bring? Usually only claims that challenge a specific constitutional limit on the power of Congress to tax or spend, primarily under the Establishment Clause.
State vs. Federal: State courts sometimes have more lenient rules on taxpayer standing, but federal courts are stricter.
RELATED Blog
0 comments