Flast v. Cohen
Flast v. Cohen is a significant Supreme Court case decided in 1968 that addressed the standing of federal taxpayers to challenge government spending, specifically regarding the use of funds for religious schools. The Court ruled by an 8-1 vote that taxpayers could sue to prevent federal money from being used to teach secular subjects in parochial schools, marking a notable shift from the precedent set in Frothingham v. Mellon, which denied such standing. Chief Justice Earl Warren authored the majority opinion, emphasizing that taxpayers needed to demonstrate a logical connection between their status and the government action being challenged, as well as showing that the spending exceeded constitutional limits.
The dissenting opinion, articulated by Justice John M. Harlan II, raised concerns about the potential for an increase in taxpayer lawsuits against the government. Following this decision, the Court's approach to taxpayer standing evolved, as seen in later cases like United States v. Richardson, where the justices indicated a reluctance to expand the Flast ruling. This case remains a pivotal reference in discussions about the intersection of taxpayer rights and the establishment clause of the First Amendment, reflecting broader themes of government funding and religious education in the United States.
Flast v. Cohen
Date: June 10, 1968
Citation: 392 U.S. 83
Issues: Establishment of religion; standing
Significance: For the first time since the 1920’s, the Supreme Court ruled that a taxpayer could sue the government for the misuse of government money but carefully limited the right of suit.
By an 8-1 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that a group of taxpayers could sue to stop federal funds from being spent on teaching secular subjects in parochial schools. After Frothingham v. Mellon (1923), federal taxpayers lacked standing and were unable to sue on the constitutionality of federal expenditures. However, in Flast v. Cohen, the Court allowed such suits if taxpayers could demonstrate that a logical link existed between their status and the type of enactment attacked and show that the challenged enactment exceeded specific constitutional limitations. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the majority opinion and was supported by concurrences from Justices William O. Douglas, Abe Fortas, and Potter Stewart. Justice John M. Harlan II dissented, fearing a large increase in inappropriate taxpayer challenges to the government. Subsequently, more conservative justices were named to the Court and the Harlan view increased in importance. In particular, the Court indicated that it would not expand the Flast ruling in United States v. Richardson (1974).
