You learned the three parts of standing in Standing: an injury in fact (concrete and particularized, actual or imminent), causation (fairly traceable to the defendant) and redressability (a court order can help), from Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992). Constitutional claims face the same test. One recurring question: can you sue just because you are a taxpayer who objects to how federal money is spent?
Why it works
Key idea
Worked example: Applying Flast's nexus test
- Part one: the challenge targets congressional spending under Article I, Section 8. Satisfied.
- Part two: the claim must rest on a specific constitutional limit on the taxing and spending power. The Court has said the Tenth Amendment is not that kind of limit.
- So the taxpayer fails part two.
Answer: No standing under Flast. The Establishment Clause is the only limit the Court has accepted for this exception.
Worked example: Hein's line
- The money came from general appropriations to the executive branch, not from a statute directing it to religious uses.
- The plurality (three justices) held Flast's exception covers only expenditures Congress specifically authorized; two more justices concurred in the judgment and would have overruled Flast.
- Four dissenters saw no principled difference between congressional and executive spending.
Answer: No standing, 5 to 4 in the judgment, with no single majority rationale.
Common mistake
Standing doctrine reflects the separation of powers: the courts decide cases, and broad policy disputes go to Congress and the voters. That idea traces back to Article III's words "Cases" and "Controversies" and to Federalist No. 78's picture of a judiciary that acts only through judgment.