United States v. Richardson
United States v. Richardson is a significant legal case that addresses the issue of taxpayer standing to sue the government. The case arose when plaintiff Richardson claimed that the law restricting the disclosure of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) spending violated the U.S. Constitution's Article I, section 9, which mandates the publication of public expenditures. While lower courts initially allowed Richardson's suit in some capacity, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in a narrow 5-4 decision that taxpayers generally do not have the right to sue the government unless they can demonstrate direct personal harm caused by government actions. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger’s majority opinion reinforced the precedent set in earlier cases, particularly Frothingham v. Mellon, by limiting taxpayer lawsuits. Dissents by Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall highlighted concerns that taxpayers should be allowed to challenge the government's failure to uphold constitutional duties without proving personal loss. This case has implications for the ability of individuals to hold the government accountable regarding financial transparency and constitutional rights.
United States v. Richardson
Date: June 25, 1974
Citation: 418 U.S. 166
Issue: Standing
Significance: The Supreme Court made it more difficult for taxpayers to sue the government.
Plaintiff Richardson sued the United States, alleging that the law prohibiting the disclosure of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) spending violated Article I, section 9, of the U.S. Constitution requiring publication of all public expenditures. The trial court and appellate courts reversed various parts of Richardson’s suit but essentially upheld his right to sue in some form. By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court overturned this latter conclusion, making taxpayers’ suits practically impossible. In his opinion for the Court, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger restored the basic rule that taxpayers may not sue the government unless they show direct personal harm from the government’s action. Burger distinguished Flast v. Cohen (1968) by giving it such a narrow interpretation that it restored the basic rule of Frothingham v. Mellon (1923) for taxpayers’ suits. Justice Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall wrote dissents in which they were joined by others. The thrust of the dissents was that taxpayers should be able to sue the government for failing an affirmative duty under the Constitution without having to show a personal loss.
