Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Flast v. Cohen

Supreme Court of the United States · 1968 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawStandingTaxpayer StandingEstablishment ClauseArticle IIIcase or controversyjusticiabilitystanding

Facts

The appellants alleged standing solely as federal taxpayers. They challenged federal expenditures under Titles I and II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, alleging that funds were being used to finance instruction and purchase textbooks and instructional materials for use in religious schools. They claimed those expenditures violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. They sought a declaration that the expenditures were unauthorized or, alternatively, that the Act was unconstitutional to that extent, along with an injunction against further approval of such expenditures.

Issue

Whether federal taxpayers have standing to challenge a federal spending program on the ground that it violates the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Also, whether the three-judge district court was properly convened so that direct appeal to the Supreme Court was proper.

Rule

A federal taxpayer has Article III standing to challenge congressional action when the taxpayer establishes a two-part nexus: first, a logical link between taxpayer status and the type of legislative enactment attacked, meaning an exercise of Congress's taxing and spending power under Article I, Section 8; and second, a nexus between taxpayer status and the precise constitutional infringement alleged, meaning that the challenged enactment exceeds a specific constitutional limitation on the taxing and spending power rather than merely exceeding Congress's general powers. The Establishment Clause is such a specific limitation.

🔒

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.

Nina Patel and Omar Reed, both federal income taxpayers in Chicago, sue the Secretary of Education and the Director of a federal grants office. They allege Congress appropriated money under a statute that provides direct grants to private schools, including religious schools, for science lab equipment and classroom materials.

If Nina and Omar allege the appropriation violates the Establishment Clause and seek to enjoin further disbursements, do they have Article III standing based solely on their status as federal taxpayers?

Explanation. A federal taxpayer has standing only when two nexuses are shown: a logical link between taxpayer status and the challenged enactment, which must be an exercise of Congress's taxing and spending power, and a nexus between taxpayer status and the precise constitutional infringement alleged, which must be a specific constitutional limitation on that power. The Establishment Clause qualifies as such a specific limitation. The majority rejected an absolute Article III bar and also rejected any requirement that the taxpayer show a measurable increase in personal tax liability.