Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 78

524US1

Unit: $U72

[09-06-00 17:28:15] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 11 (1998)

33

Scalia, J., dissenting

ferentiated and common to all members of the public.”
418
U. S., at 176–177 (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted).

.

.

It was alleged in Richardson that the Government had
denied a right conferred by the Constitution, whereas re-
spondents here assert a right conferred by statute—but of
course “there is absolutely no basis for making the Article
III inquiry turn on the source of the asserted right.” Lujan
v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 576 (1992). The
Court today distinguishes Richardson on a different basis—
a basis that reduces it from a landmark constitutional holding
to a curio. According to the Court, “Richardson focused
. not voter standing.” Ante,
upon taxpayer standing,
at 22.
In addition to being a silly distinction, given the
weighty governmental purpose underlying the “generalized
grievance” prohibition—viz., to avoid “something in the
nature of an Athenian democracy or a New England town
meeting to oversee the conduct of the National Government
by means of lawsuits in federal courts,” 418 U. S., at 179—
this is also a distinction that the Court in Richardson went
It is true enough
out of its way explicitly to eliminate.
that the narrow question presented in Richardson was
“ ‘[w]hether a federal taxpayer has standing,’ ” id., at 167,
n. 1. But the Richardson Court did not hold only, as the
Court today suggests, that the plaintiff failed to qualify for
the exception to the rule of no taxpayer standing established
by the “logical nexus” test of Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83
(1968).* The plaintiff ’s complaint in Richardson had also al-
leged that he was “ ‘a member of the electorate,’ ” 418 U. S.,
at 167, n. 1, and he asserted injury in that capacity as well.

*That holding was inescapable since, as the Court made clear in another
case handed down the same day, “the Flast nexus test is not applicable
where the taxing and spending power is not challenged” (as in Richardson
it was not). Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U. S.
208, 225, n. 15 (1974).