Sarnoff Et Al. v. Shultz, Secretary of the Treasury, Et Al.

Background

A group of federal taxpayers sued the Treasury Secretary and other government officials to stop certain payments made under the Foreign Assistance Act to support the United States’ military effort in Vietnam. They asked for an injunction and a three-judge court, but the request was denied by the lower courts, which held that the complaint raised a “political question” beyond court authority. The taxpayers then asked the Supreme Court to review that decision; the Court declined to hear the case.

Reasoning

The key question was whether federal taxpayers can sue to challenge government spending when Congress has not formally declared war and the spending supports a President-led military effort. Justice Douglas, in a dissent joined by Justice Brennan, argued that a 1968 decision (Flast v. Cohen) allows taxpayer suits when a specific constitutional limit on Congress’s spending power is claimed, and that this case fits that rule. He said the dispute raises real constitutional issues about the power to “declare war.” Because the Supreme Court denied review, the lower-court conclusion that the issue is a political question stands for now.

Real world impact

The denial leaves the government’s disbursements for the Vietnam military effort in place and means the particular taxpayer challenge will not be decided by the Supreme Court. The ruling affects taxpayers who sought to use the courts to stop executive spending on war and leaves unresolved whether courts may review similar claims in other cases. This is not a final ruling on the constitutional merits and could be revisited in a future case.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas wrote the dissent, joined by Justice Brennan, urging the Court to grant review and to consider whether Flast allows this taxpayer challenge to presidential war spending.