418 U.S. 166 (1974)
Richardson, a United States taxpayer, brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado challenging the constitutionality of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949.1 He alleged that the Act's provisions permitting the Agency to account for its expenditures solely on the certificate of the Director of Central Intelligence violate the Statement and Account Clause of Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution.2 Richardson claimed injury as a taxpayer because the challenged law prevented him from learning how Congress spends public money and from taking steps to correct what he believed to be illegal and unconstitutional uses of public funds.3
In 1967 Richardson wrote to the Government Printing Office requesting documents published by the Government in compliance with the constitutional clause.4 The Fiscal Service of the Bureau of Accounts of the Department of the Treasury replied by sending copies of the Combined Statement of Receipts, Expenditures, and Balances of the United States Government along with monthly and daily reports.5 Richardson then wrote again, quoting part of the CIA Act and asking whether the statute cast reflection upon the authenticity of the Treasury's Statement and how he could receive further information on CIA expenditures.6 The Bureau replied that it had no other available information.7
Richardson next asserted that the CIA Act was repugnant to the Constitution and requested that the Treasury Department seek an opinion of the Attorney General, but the Department declined.8 Richardson's complaint asked the court to issue a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from publishing their Combined Statement and representing it as the fulfillment of the constitutional mandate until the statement fully complies.9 The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that Richardson lacked standing and that the claim presented a nonjusticiable political question.10
The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that Richardson had standing as a taxpayer under Flast v. Cohen and that the claim was justiciable.11 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.12
Whether a federal taxpayer has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 on the ground that its accounting provisions violate the Statement and Account Clause?13
Under the test established in Flast v. Cohen, a taxpayer has standing to challenge a federal statute only upon demonstrating a logical link between taxpayer status and the legislative enactment attacked.14 The taxpayer must also show that the enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of congressional taxing and spending power.15 Generalized grievances shared by all members of the public do not suffice to confer standing.16
No. Richardson's claim challenges the method of accounting for the CIA's expenditures rather than any incidental expenditure of tax funds.17 He alleges only the generalized injury of being unable to obtain information on the use of public funds, an injury shared by all taxpayers and not particularized to him.18 The claim does not attack a specific constitutional limitation on the taxing and spending power as required by the Flast test.19 The asserted injury fails to meet the threshold of some actual or threatened injury resulting from the challenged statute.20
Richardson lacks standing to maintain the action.21
Related opinions on this issue
Powell concurs that the respondent's claim is a generalized grievance that is not particularized to him as a taxpayer.22 The Framers of the Constitution were well aware of the dangers of generalized grievances and limited the jurisdiction of the federal courts to cases and controversies.23 The respondent has not shown that he has been injured in any way different from any other member of the public.24
His claim is therefore not justiciable in the federal courts.25
Douglas dissents, arguing that the respondent has standing as a taxpayer to raise this claim.26 As a taxpayer he has a direct interest in ensuring that the funds he contributes are spent in accordance with the Constitution.27 The majority's reliance on the lack of a particularized injury is misplaced.28 The injury is the denial of information to which the respondent as a citizen and taxpayer is entitled under the Constitution.29
The Court today closes the courthouse door to citizens who seek to ensure that their government complies with the Constitution.30
Joined by Justice Marshall
Brennan dissents because the Statement and Account Clause requires a regular statement and account of all public expenditures.31 The CIA Act's provision for secret accounting directly conflicts with this constitutional command.32 As a taxpayer Richardson possesses standing to challenge the unconstitutional provision.33
The majority's narrow view of standing will leave many constitutional violations unchecked and without any judicial remedy.34 Brennan joins Stewart's analysis that the Clause imposes an affirmative duty on the government to supply periodic public accounts of expenditures.35
Joined by Justice Brennan And Justice Marshall
Stewart dissents, contending that the Accounts Clause was included in the Constitution to ensure that the public would know how its money was being spent.36 The CIA Act's accounting provisions directly contravene this constitutional command.37 The respondent as a federal taxpayer is entitled to the information that the Constitution requires to be published.38
His inability to obtain that information is a sufficient injury to confer standing.39 The majority's decision effectively renders the Accounts Clause a dead letter.40
Whether the respondent's claim presents a justiciable case or controversy rather than a nonjusticiable political question?41
The judicial power of the United States extends only to cases and controversies under Article III.42 A generalized grievance shared by all members of the public that is undifferentiated and common to all is insufficient to confer standing or present a justiciable controversy suitable for judicial resolution.43
No. Richardson alleges only a generalized grievance that the CIA's funds are being spent in violation of the Constitution without any particularized injury distinct from that suffered by the public at large.44 The absence of any particular individual or class to litigate the claim supports the conclusion that the subject matter is committed to the surveillance of Congress and ultimately to the political process rather than to the courts.45
The claim does not present a justiciable case or controversy.46