Facts of the Case
Florence Flast and a group of taxpayers challenged federal legislation that financed the purchase of secular textbooks for use in religious schools. Flast argued that such use of tax money violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A district court held that the federal courts should defer when confronted with taxpayer suits directed against federal spending programs.
Questions
Did Flast, as a taxpayer, have standing to sue the government's spending program?
Conclusions
-
In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court rejected the government's argument that the constitutional scheme of separation of powers barred taxpayer suits against federal taxing and spending programs. In order to prove a "requisite personal stake" in such cases, taxpayers had to 1) establish a logical link between their status as taxpayers and the type of legislative enactment attacked, and 2) show the challenged enactment exceeded specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of Congressional taxing and spending power. The Court held that Flast had met both parts of the test.
In Whose Name We Pray: Restoring the Establishment Clause in Town of Greece v. Galloway
Engage Volume 14, Issue 3 October 2013
Note from the Editor: This article is a discussion about the Establishment Clause issue in...
Why the Supreme Court Has Fashioned Rules of Standing Unique to the Establishment Clause
The U.S. Supreme Court is quite vigilant in enforcing its justiciability rules concerning standing to...
