Flast v. Cohen
| Flast v. Cohen | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued March 12, 1968 Decided June 10, 1968 |
|
| Full case name | Flast et al. v. Cohen, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare et al. |
| Citations | 392 U.S. 83 (more)
88 S. Ct. 1942; 20 L. Ed. 2d 947; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1347
|
| Prior history | Dismissed for lack of standing, 267 F. Supp. 351 (1967); probable jurisdiction noted, 389 U.S. 895 (1967) |
| Holding | |
| Taxpayers have standing to sue to prevent the disbursement of federal funds in contravention of the specific constitutional prohibition against government support of religion. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Warren, joined by Black, Douglas, Stewart, Brennan, White, Marshall |
| Concurrence | Douglas |
| Concurrence | Stewart |
| Concurrence | Fortas |
| Dissent | Harlan |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 8, Art. III | |
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that a taxpayer has standing to sue the government to prevent an unconstitutional use of taxpayer funds.
The Supreme Court decided in Frothingham v. Mellon (1923), that a taxpayer did not have standing to sue the federal government to prevent expenditures if her only injury is an anticipated increase in taxes. Frothingham v. Mellon did not recognize a constitutional barrier against federal taxpayer lawsuits. Rather, it denied standing because the petitioner did not allege "a breach by Congress of the specific constitutional limitations imposed upon an exercise of the taxing and spending power." Because the purpose of standing is to avoid burdening the court with situations in which there is no real controversy, standing is used to ensure that the parties in the suit are properly adversarial, "not whether the issue itself is justiciable."
In 1968, Florance Flast joined several others in filing a lawsuit against Wilbur Cohen, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, contending that spending funds on religious schools violated the First Amendment's ban on the establishment of religion. The district court denied standing, and the Supreme Court heard the appeal.
...
Wikipedia