Flast v. Cohen

Background

Seven individual federal taxpayers sued the federal officials who run the education grant programs. They said Titles I and II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act were being used to fund instruction, textbooks, and library materials in religious schools. The plaintiffs relied only on their status as federal taxpayers. A three-judge district court dismissed the case for lack of standing, and the taxpayers appealed to this Court.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether Frothingham’s ban on taxpayer suits should yield when the Establishment Clause is at issue. The Justices declined an absolute bar. They announced a two-part test: the claim must challenge Congress’s taxing-and-spending power and the program must involve substantial federal expenditures; and the challenge must allege a violation of a specific constitutional limitation on that power, here the Establishment Clause. Applying that test, the Court found the taxpayers had standing and reversed. The Court did not decide the merits of the Establishment Clause claim.

Real world impact

The ruling allows individual taxpayers to seek judicial review when they allege federal tax money is used to support religion. It opens a path to challenge federal education grants and materials provided to private religious schools. The decision is procedural about who can sue and is limited by the Court’s two-part test; the underlying constitutional questions remain for later resolution.

Dissents or concurrances

Some Justices urged a broader rule or immediate overruling of Frothingham, while others would confine the holding to Establishment Clause suits. A dissent warned of separation-of-powers concerns and judicial overreach.