Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War

1974-06-25

Headline: Court blocks citizen and taxpayer lawsuit over Members of Congress serving as military reservists, reversing lower courts and leaving enforcement and removal questions to the political branches.

Holding: The Court held that the Reservists Committee and its members lack standing to sue as United States citizens or taxpayers, and therefore reversed the Court of Appeals without deciding whether reservist commissions violate the Incompatibility Clause.

Real World Impact:

Prevents generalized citizen or taxpayer suits without concrete injury.
Leaves removal of reservist lawmakers to political branches or other plaintiffs.
Narrows who may sue to enforce constitutional provisions without direct harm.

Topics: military reserves, conflict of interest, citizen standing, taxpayer lawsuits, separation of powers

Summary

Background

A group called the Reservists Committee, made up of present and former military reservists who opposed the Vietnam War, sued the Secretary of Defense and the Service Secretaries. They asked a federal court to remove Members of Congress from Reserve rolls, bar future placements, reclaim Reserve pay, and declare Reserve membership incompatible with serving in Congress. The District Court granted partial summary judgment saying a Reserve commission is an “Office under the United States.” The Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court reviewed whether the committee and its members could bring the lawsuit as ordinary citizens or as taxpayers. The Court said they could not. It held that the committee’s complaint raised a generalized injury shared by all citizens and thus failed the requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete, personal injury. The Court also ruled that taxpayer standing did not apply because the case did not challenge an exercise of Congress’s taxing and spending power in the way required by prior taxpayer-standing decisions. Because of those standing rulings, the Court reversed the lower-court judgment and declined to decide whether Reserve commissions actually violate the Constitution.

Real world impact

As a result, this decision prevents courts from resolving this dispute in response to a generalized citizen or taxpayer complaint. The question whether Members of Congress may hold Reserve commissions was left for other forums or for plaintiffs who can show direct, personal harm. The case was sent back to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stewart agreed with the outcome on standing. Justices Douglas, Marshall, and Brennan dissented, arguing citizens and taxpayers could have standing to enforce the Incompatibility Clause and that the committee alleged enough direct injury to bring the case.