Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno

Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawArticle III standingtaxpayer standingCommerce ClauseArticle IIIcase or controversystandingstate taxpayer standing

Facts

Ohio offered a franchise tax credit to corporations that purchased and installed new manufacturing machinery and equipment in the State, and Toledo separately agreed to waive property taxes for DaimlerChrysler's Jeep plant expansion. Plaintiffs, mostly Toledo residents who paid taxes to both Toledo and Ohio, alleged that these tax benefits violated the Commerce Clause because they reduced funds available to the city and State and imposed disproportionate tax burdens on them. In this Court, the standing dispute concerned the challenge to the state franchise tax credit. Plaintiffs asserted standing as Ohio taxpayers and also argued that their status as municipal taxpayers supported standing to challenge the state credit.

Issue

Do state or municipal taxpayers have Article III standing to challenge Ohio's state franchise tax credit for DaimlerChrysler on the theory that the credit depletes public revenues and increases their tax burdens? Does standing to challenge a municipal tax exemption or the presence of related claims allow plaintiffs to pursue the separate challenge to the state tax credit?

Rule

A plaintiff invoking federal jurisdiction must show a personal injury fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief. State taxpayers have no Article III standing to challenge state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of taxpayer status, because the alleged injury from effects on the treasury is generalized, conjectural, and dependent on speculative legislative choices; standing must be demonstrated for each claim and is not supplied by municipal taxpayer status or supplemental jurisdiction over related claims.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Elena Ruiz, a resident of Phoenix, pays Arizona income and sales taxes. She sues in federal court to challenge an Arizona statute granting a refundable tax credit to semiconductor manufacturers, alleging the credit will reduce state revenues and eventually force the legislature to raise taxes on residents like her.

Does Elena have Article III standing to pursue the challenge?

Explanation. A plaintiff must show a personal injury fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and likely redressable. Under the majority opinion, state taxpayers lack Article III standing to challenge state tax or spending decisions solely by virtue of taxpayer status. An asserted injury based on reduced state revenues and a possible future tax increase is shared generally and depends on speculative legislative choices, so it is not concrete, particularized, actual, or imminent.