Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/101942/flast-vs-cohen
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:27:11+00:00

Document:
1. The three-judge court was properly convened, as the constitutional attack, even though focused on the program's operations in New York City, would, if successful, affect the entire regulatory scheme of the statute, and the complaint alleged a constitutional ground for relief, albeit one coupled with an alternative nonconstitutional ground. Pp. 392 U. S. 88 -91.
2. There is no absolute bar in Art. III of the Constitution to suits by federal taxpayers challenging allegedly unconstitutional federal taxing and spending programs, since the taxpayers may or may not have the requisite personal stake in the outcome. Pp. 392 U. S. 91 -101.
3. To maintain an action challenging the constitutionality of a federal spending program, individuals must demonstrate the necessary stake as taxpayers in the outcome of the litigation to satisfy Art. III requirements. Pp. 392 U. S. 102 -103.
(a) Taxpayers must establish a logical link between that status and the type of legislative enactment attacked, as it will not be sufficient to allege an incidental expenditure of tax funds in the administration of an essentially regulatory statute. P. 392 U. S. 102 .
limitations on the exercise of the taxing and spending power, and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by Art. I, § 8. Pp. 1 392 U. S. 02 -103.
4. The taxpayer appellants here have standing consistent with Art. III to invoke federal judicial power, since they have alleged that tax money is being spent in violation of a specific constitutional protection against the abuse of legislative power, i.e., the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Frothingham v. Mellon, supra, distinguished. Pp. 392 U. S. 103 -106.
Appellants filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to enjoin the allegedly unconstitutional expenditure of federal funds under Titles I and II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 27, 20 U.S.C. §§ 241a et seq., 821 et seq. (1964 ed., Supp. II). The complaint alleged that the seven appellants had as a common attribute that "each pay[s] income taxes of the United States," and it is clear from the complaint that the appellants were resting their standing to maintain the action solely on their status as federal taxpayers. [ Footnote 1 ] The appellees, who are charged by Congress with administering the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, were sued in their official capacities.
381 U.S. at 381 U. S. 6 . See also Florida Lime Growers v. Jacobsen, 362 U. S. 73 (1960); Allen v. Grand Central Aircraft Co., 347 U. S. 535 (1954). The complaint in this case falls within that rule.
Thus, since the three-judge court was properly convened below, [ Footnote 4 ] direct appeal to this Court is proper. We turn now to the standing question presented by this case.
liability, and "thereby take her property without due process of law." 262 U.S. at 262 U. S. 486 . The Court noted that a federal taxpayer's "interest in the moneys of the Treasury . . . is comparatively minute and indeterminable," and that "the effect upon future taxation, of any payment out of the [Treasury's] funds, . . . [is] remote, fluctuating and uncertain." Id. at 262 U. S. 487 . As a result, the Court ruled that the taxpayer had failed to allege the type of "direct injury" necessary to confer standing. Id. at 262 U. S. 488 .
Id. at 262 U. S. 487 . Such a statement suggests pure policy considerations.
To the extent that Frothingham has been viewed as resting on policy considerations, it has been criticized as depending on assumptions not consistent with modern conditions. For example, some commentators have pointed out that a number of corporate taxpayers today have a federal tax liability running into hundreds of millions of dollars, and such taxpayers have a far greater monetary stake in the Federal Treasury than they do in any municipal treasury. [ Footnote 8 ] To some degree, the fear expressed in Frothingham that allowing one taxpayer to sue would inundate the federal courts with countless similar suits has been mitigated by the ready availability of the devices of class actions and joinder under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, adopted subsequent to the decision in Frothingham. [ Footnote 9 ] Whatever the merits of the current debate over Frothingham, its very existence suggests that we should undertake a fresh examination of the limitations upon standing to sue in a federal court and the application of those limitations to taxpayer suits.
Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497 , 367 U. S. 508 (1961).
United States v. Fruehauf, 365 U. S. 146 , 365 U. S. 157 (1961). Consequently, the Article III prohibition against advisory opinions reflects the complementary constitutional considerations expressed by the justiciability doctrine: federal judicial power is limited to those disputes which confine federal courts to a role consistent with a system of separated powers and which are traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process.
Additional uncertainty exists in the doctrine of justiciability because that doctrine has become a blend of constitutional requirements and policy considerations. And a policy limitation is "not always clearly distinguished from the constitutional limitation." Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U. S. 249 , 346 U. S. 255 (1953). For example, in his concurring opinion in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288 , 297 U. S. 345 -348 (1936), Mr. Justice Brandeis listed seven rules developed by this Court "for its own governance" to avoid passing prematurely on constitutional questions. Because the rules operate in "cases confessedly within [the Court's] jurisdiction," id. at 297 U. S. 346 , they find their source in policy, rather than purely constitutional, considerations. However, several of the cases cited by Mr. Justice Brandeis in illustrating the rules of self-governance articulated purely constitutional grounds for decision. See, e.g., Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447 (1923); Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U. S. 126 (1922); Chicago & Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U. S. 339 (1892). The "many subtle pressures" [ Footnote 15 ] which cause policy considerations to blend into the constitutional limitations of Article III make the justiciability doctrine one of uncertain and shifting contours.
It is in this context that the standing question presented by this case must be viewed and that the Government's argument on that question must be evaluated. As we understand it, the Government's position is that the constitutional scheme of separation of powers, and the deference owed by the federal judiciary to the other two branches of government within that scheme, present an absolute bar to taxpayer suits challenging the validity of federal spending programs. The Government views such suits as involving no more than the mere disagreement by the taxpayer "with the uses to which tax money is put." [ Footnote 16 ] According to the Government, the resolution of such disagreements is committed to other branches of the Federal Government, and not to the judiciary. Consequently, the Government contends that under no circumstances should standing be conferred on federal taxpayers to challenge a federal taxing or spending program. [ Footnote 17 ] An analysis of the function served by standing limitations compels a rejection of the Government's position.
challenged is a proper party to request an adjudication of a particular issue, and not whether the issue itself is justiciable. [ Footnote 21 ] Thus, a party may have standing in a particular case, but the federal court may nevertheless decline to pass on the merits of the case because, for example, it presents a political question. [ Footnote 22 ] A proper party is demanded so that federal courts will not be asked to decide "ill-defined controversies over constitutional issues," United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75 , 330 U. S. 90 (1947), or a case which is of "a hypothetical or abstract character," Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227 , 300 U. S. 240 (1937). So stated, the standing requirement is closely related to, although more general than, the rule that federal courts will not entertain friendly suits, Chicago & Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Wellman, supra, or those which are feigned or collusive in nature, United States v. Johnson, 319 U. S. 302 (1943); Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251 (1850).
arise, if at all, only from the substantive issues the individual seeks to have adjudicated. Thus, in terms of Article III limitations on federal court jurisdiction, the question of standing is related only to whether the dispute sought to be adjudicated will be presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of judicial resolution. It is for that reason that the emphasis in standing problems is on whether the party invoking federal court jurisdiction has "a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy," Baker v. Carr, supra, at 369 U. S. 204 , and whether the dispute touches upon "the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests." Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth, supra, at 300 U. S. 240 -241. A taxpayer may or may not have the requisite personal stake in the outcome, depending upon the circumstances of the particular case. Therefore, we find no absolute bar in Article III to suits by federal taxpayers challenging allegedly unconstitutional federal taxing and spending programs. There remains, however, the problem of determining the circumstances under which a federal taxpayer will be deemed to have the personal stake and interest that impart the necessary concrete adverseness to such litigation so that standing can be conferred on the taxpayer qua taxpayer consistent with the constitutional limitations of Article III.
establish that, in ruling on standing, it is both appropriate and necessary to look to the substantive issues for another purpose, namely, to determine whether there is a logical nexus between the status asserted and the claim sought to be adjudicated. For example, standing requirements will vary in First Amendment religion cases depending upon whether the party raises an Establishment Clause claim or a claim under the Free Exercise Clause. See McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420 , 366 U. S. 429 -430 (1961). Such inquiries into the nexus between the status asserted by the litigant and the claim he presents are essential to assure that he is a proper and appropriate party to invoke federal judicial power. Thus, our point of reference in this case is the standing of individuals who assert only the status of federal taxpayers and who challenge the constitutionality of a federal spending program. Whether such individuals have standing to maintain that form of action turns on whether they can demonstrate the necessary stake as taxpayers in the outcome of the litigation to satisfy Article III requirements.
government could employ its taxing and spending powers to aid one religion over another or to aid religion in general. [ Footnote 24 ] The Establishment Clause was designed as a specific bulwark against such potential abuses of governmental power, and that clause of the First Amendment [ Footnote 25 ] operates as a specific constitutional limitation upon the exercise by Congress of the taxing and spending power conferred by Art. I, § 8.
While we express no view at all on the merits of appellants' claims in this case, [ Footnote 26 ] their complaint contains sufficient allegations under the criteria we have outlined to give them standing to invoke a federal court's jurisdiction for an adjudication on the merits.
This issue was not raised in the court below, and the Government argued it for the first time in its brief in this Court. The Government claims the inappropriateness of convening a three-judge court became apparent only as the issues in the case have been clarified by appellants. Because the question now presented goes to our jurisdiction on direct appeal, the lateness of the claim is irrelevant to our consideration of it. United States v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 226 , 303 U. S. 229 (1938).
In at least three cases prior to Frothingham, the Court accepted jurisdiction in taxpayer suits without passing directly on the standing question. Wilson v. Shaw, 204 U. S. 24 , 204 U. S. 31 (1907); Millard v. Roberts, 202 U. S. 429 , 202 U. S. 438 (1906); Bradfield v. Roberts, 175 U. S. 291 , 175 U. S. 295 (1899).
"Although the Court in the latter part of the opinion used language suggesting that it did not find the elements of a justiciable controversy present in the case, the case in its central aspect turns on application of the judicially formulated [ i.e., nonconstitutional] rules respecting standing."
The rule against advisory opinions was established as early as 1793, see 3 H. Johnston, Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay 486-489 (1891), and the rule has been adhered to without deviation. See United States v. Fruehauf, 365 U. S. 146 , 365 U. S. 157 (1961), and cases cited therein.
Thus, a general standing limitation imposed by federal courts is that a litigant will ordinarily not be permitted to assert the rights of absent third parties. See, e.g., Heald v. District of Columbia, 259 U. S. 114 , 259 U. S. 123 (1922); Yazoo & Miss. Valley R. Co. v. Jackson Vinegar Co., 226 U. S. 217 (1912). However, this rule has not been imposed uniformly as a firm constitutional restriction on federal court jurisdiction. See, e.g., Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479 , 380 U. S. 486 -487 (1965); Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U. S. 249 (1953).
While I have joined the opinion of the Court, I do not think that the test it lays down is a durable one, for the reasons stated by my Brother HARLAN. I think, therefore, that it will suffer erosion, and, in time, result in the demise of Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447 . It would therefore be the part of wisdom, as I see the problem, to be rid of Frothingham here and now.
state support of churches, said the principle was violated when even "three pence" was appropriated to that cause by the Government. [ Footnote 2/1 ] It therefore does not do to talk about taxpayers' interest as "infinitesimal." The restraint on "liberty" may be fleeting and passing, and still violate a fundamental constitutional guarantee. The "three pence" mentioned by Madison may signal a monstrous invasion by the Government into church affairs, and so on.
Marshall wrote in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 5 U. S. 178 , that, if the judiciary stayed its hand in deference to the legislature, it would give the legislature "a practical and real omnipotence." My Brother HARLAN's view would do just that, for, unless Congress created a procedure through which its legislative creation could be challenged quickly and with ease, the momentum of what it had done would grind the dissenter under.
There need be no inundation of the federal courts if taxpayers' suits are allowed. There is a wise judicial discretion that usually can distinguish between the frivolous question and the substantial question, between cases ripe for decision and cases that need prior administrative processing, and the like. [ Footnote 2/6 ] When the judiciary is no longer "a great rock" [ Footnote 2/7 ] in the storm, as Lord Sankey once put it, when the courts are niggardly in the use of their power and reach great issues only timidly and reluctantly, the force of the Constitution in the life of the Nation is greatly weakened.
The two clear exceptions are municipal taxpayers' suits in Kansas ( see Asendorf v. Common School Dist. No. 102, 175 Kan. 601, 266 P.2d 309 (1954)) and state taxpayers' suits in New York ( see Schieffelin v. Komfort, 212 N.Y. 520, 106 N.E. 675 (1914); St. Clair v. Yonkers Raceway, 13 N.Y.2d 72, 242 N.Y.S.2d 43, 192 N.E.2d 15 (1963); but see Kuhn v. Curran, 294 N.Y. 207, 61 N.E.2d 513 (1945)).
See, e.g., NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449 ; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 . As the Court said in Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U. S. 249 , 346 U. S. 255 , apart from Article III jurisdictional questions, standing involves a "rule of self-restraint for its own governance" which "this Court has developed" itself. And attempts by Congress to confer standing when it is constitutionally lacking are unavailing. Muskrat v. United States, 219 U. S. 346 .
I join the judgment and opinion of the Court, which I understand to hold only that a federal taxpayer has standing to assert that a specific expenditure of federal funds violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Because that clause plainly prohibits taxing and spending in aid of religion, every taxpayer can claim a personal constitutional right not to be taxed for the support of a religious institution. The present case is thus readily distinguishable from Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447 , where the taxpayer did not rely on an explicit constitutional prohibition, but instead questioned the scope of the powers delegated to the national legislature by Article I of the Constitution.
Ante at 392 U. S. 106 .
On the other hand, the urgent necessities of this case and the precarious opening through which we find our way to confront it, do not demand that we open the door to a general assault upon exercises of the spending power. The status of taxpayer should not be accepted as a launching pad for an attack upon any target other than legislation affecting the Establishment Clause. See concurring opinion of STEWART, J., ante, p. 392 U. S. 114 .
* See ante at 392 U. S. 104 , n. 24.
It is desirable first to restate the basic issues in this case. The question here is not, as it was not in Frothingham, whether "a federal taxpayer is without standing to challenge the constitutionality of a federal statute." Ante at 392 U. S. 85 . It could hardly be disputed that federal taxpayers may, as taxpayers, contest the constitutionality of tax obligations imposed severally upon them by federal statute. Such a challenge may be made by way of defense to an action by the United States to recover the amount of a challenged tax debt, see, e.g., 3 U. S. United States, 3 Dall. 171; McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27 ; United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. l; or to a prosecution for willful failure to pay or to report the tax. See, e.g., Marchetti v. United States, 390 U. S. 39 . Moreover, such a challenge may provide the basis of an action by a taxpayer to obtain the refund of a previous tax payment. See, e.g., Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20 .
It does not, however, follow that suits brought by non-Hohfeldian plaintiffs are excluded by the "case or controversy" clause of Article III of the Constitution from the jurisdiction of the federal courts. This and other federal courts have repeatedly held that individual litigants, acting as private attorneys-general, may have standing as "representatives of the public interest." Scripps-Howard Radio v. Comm'n, 316 U. S. 4 , 316 U. S. 14 . See also Commission v. Sanders Radio Station, 309 U. S. 470 , 309 U. S. 477 ; Associated Industries v. Ickes, 134 F.2d 694; Reade v. Ewing, 205 F.2d 630; Scenic Hudson Preservation Conf. v. FPC, 354 F.2d 608; Office of Communication of United Church of Christ v. FCC, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 328, 359 F.2d 994. Compare Oklahoma v. Civil Service Comm'n, 330 U. S. 127 , 330 U. S. 137 -139. And see, on actions qui tam, Marvin v. Trout, 199 U. S. 212 , 199 U. S. 225 ; United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U. S. 537 , 317 U. S. 546 . The various lines of authority are by no means free of difficulty, and certain of the cases may be explicable as involving a personal, if remote, economic interest, but I think that it is nonetheless clear that non-Hohfeldian plaintiffs, as such, are not constitutionally excluded from the federal courts. The problem ultimately presented by this case is, in my view, therefore, to determine in what circumstances, consonant with the character and proper functioning of the federal courts, such suits should be permitted. [ Footnote 3/8 ] With this preface, I shall examine the position adopted by the Court.
powers. [ Footnote 3/11 ] Disregarding for the moment the formidable obscurity of the Court's categories, how can it be said that Mrs. Frothingham's interests in her suit were, as a consequence of her choice of a constitutional claim, necessarily less intense than those, for example, of the present appellants? I am quite unable to understand how, if a taxpayer believes that a given public expenditure is unconstitutional, and if he seeks to vindicate that belief in a federal court, his interest in the suit can be said necessarily to vary according to the constitutional provision under which he states his claim.
The absence of any connection between the Court's standard for the determination of standing and its criteria for the satisfaction of that standard is not merely a logical ellipsis. Instead, it follows quite relentlessly from the fact that, despite the Court's apparent belief, the plaintiffs in this and similar suits are non-Hohfeldian, and it is very nearly impossible to measure sensibly any differences in the intensity of their personal interests in their suits. The Court has thus been compelled simply to postulate situations in which such taxpayer plaintiffs will be "deemed" to have the requisite "personal stake and interest." Ante at 392 U. S. 101 . The logical inadequacies of the Court's criteria are thus a reflection of the deficiencies of its entire position. These deficiencies will, however, appear more plainly from an examination of the Court's treatment of the Establishment Clause.
Although the Court does not altogether explain its position, the essence of its reasoning is evidently that a taxpayer's claim under the Establishment Clause is "not merely one of ultra vires, " but one which, instead, asserts "an abridgment of individual religious liberty" and a "governmental infringement of individual rights protected by the Constitution." Choper, The Establishment Clause and Aid to Parochial Schools, 56 Calif.L.Rev. 260, 276. It must first be emphasized that this is apparently not founded upon any "preferred" position for the First Amendment, or upon any asserted unavailability of other plaintiffs. [ Footnote 3/12 ] The Court's position is, instead, that, because of the Establishment Clause's historical purposes, taxpayers retain rights under it quite different from those held by them under other constitutional provisions.
"it is impossible to give a dogmatic interpretation of the First Amendment, and to state with any accuracy the intention of the men who framed it. [ Footnote 3/14 ]"
the Constitution's several commands, but neither can I suppose that such power resides only in the federal courts. We must as judges recall that, as Mr. Justice Holmes wisely observed, the other branches of the Government "are ultimate guardians of the liberties and welfare of the people in quite as great a degree as the courts." Missouri, Kansas & Texas R. Co. v. May, 194 U. S. 267 , 194 U. S. 270 . The powers of the federal judiciary will be adequate for the great burdens placed upon them only if they are employed prudently, with recognition of the strengths as well as the hazards that go with our kind of representative government.
This does not mean that we would, under such a rule, be enabled to avoid our constitutional responsibilities, or that we would confine to limbo the First Amendment or any other constitutional command. The question here is not, despite the Court's unarticulated premise, whether the religious clauses of the First Amendment are hereafter to be enforced by the federal courts; the issue is simply whether plaintiffs of an additional category, heretofore excluded from those courts, are to be permitted to maintain suits. The recent history of this Court is replete with illustrations, including even one announced today ( supra at n. 12), that questions involving the religious clauses will not, if federal taxpayers are prevented from contesting federal expenditures, be left "unacknowledged, unresolved, and undecided."
I agree that implicit in this question is the belief that the federal courts may decline to accept for adjudication cases or questions that, although otherwise within the perimeter of their constitutional jurisdiction, are appropriately thought to be unsuitable at least for immediate judicial resolution. Compare Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288 , 297 U. S. 345 -348 (concurring opinion); H. Wechsler, Principles, Politics, and Fundamental Law 9-15 (1961), and Bickel, Foreword: The Passive Virtues, The Supreme Court, 1960 Term, 75 Harv.L.Rev. 40, 45-47 (1961).
I must note at the outset that I cannot determine with any certainty the Court's intentions with regard to this first criterion. Its use of Doremus v. Board of Education, 342 U. S. 429 , as an analogue perhaps suggests that it intends to exclude only those cases in which there are virtually no public expenditures. See, e.g., Howard v. City of Boulder, 132 Colo. 401, 290 P.2d 23. On the other hand, the Court also emphasizes that the contested programs may not be "essentially regulatory" programs, and that the statute challenged here "involves a substantial expenditure of federal tax funds." Ante at 392 U. S. 102 , 392 U. S. 103 (emphasis added). Presumably this means that the Court's standing doctrine also excludes any program in which the expenditures are "insubstantial" or which cannot be characterized as a "spending" program.
It should be emphasized that the Court finds it unnecessary to examine the history of the Due Process Clause to determine whether it was intended as a "specific limitation" upon Congress' spending and taxing powers. Nor does the Court pause to examine the purposes of the Tenth Amendment, another of the premises of the constitutional claims in Frothingham. But see 22 U. S. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 22 U. S. 199 ; Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 75 U. S. 541 ; United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1 . And compare Everson v Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1 , 330 U. S. 6 .
Ante at 392 U. S. 104 , n. 25. Assuming arguendo the existence of such a federal "best plaintiff" rule, it is difficult to see why this rule would not altogether exclude taxpayers as plaintiffs under the Establishment Clause, since there plainly may be litigants under the Clause with the personal rights and interests of Hohfeldian plaintiffs. See, e.g., Board of Education v. Allen, decided today, post, p. 392 U. S. 236 .
See, in particular, M. Howe, The Garden and the Wilderness 1-31 (1965); C. Antieau, A. Downey & E. Roberts, Freedom from Federal Establishment (1964). Not all members of the Court have, of course, ignored the complexities of the clause's history. See especially McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U. S. 203 , 333 U. S. 238 (dissenting opinion of Reed, J.).
I will, of course, grant that claims under, for example, the Tenth Amendment may present "generalized grievances about the conduct of government or the allocation of power in the Federal System." Ante at 392 U. S. 106 . I will also grant that it would be well if such questions could be avoided by the federal courts. Unfortunately, I cannot see how these considerations are relevant under the Court's principal criterion, which I understand to be merely whether any given constitutional provision is, or is not, a limitation upon Congress' spending powers. It is difficult to see what there is in the fact that a constitutional provision is held to be such a limitation that could sensibly give the Court "confidence" about the fashion in which a given plaintiff will present a given issue.
The bill was intended to establish "a provision for teachers of the Christian religion." It and the Memorial and Remonstrance are reprinted in Everson v. Board of Education, supra, at 330 U. S. 63 -74.
I have equal difficulty with the argument that the religious clauses of the First Amendment create a "personal constitutional right," held by all citizens, such that any citizen may, under those clauses, contest the constitutionality of federal expenditures. The essence of the argument would presumably be that freedom from establishment is a right that inheres in every citizen, thus, any citizen should be permitted to challenge any measure that conceivably involves establishment. Certain provisions of the Constitution, so the argument would run, create the basic structure of our society and of its government, and accordingly should be enforceable at the demand of every individual. Unlike the position taken today by the Court, such a doctrine of standing would at least be internally consistent, but it would also threaten the proper functioning both of the federal courts and of the principle of separation of powers. The Establishment Clause is, after all, only one of many provisions of the Constitution that might be characterized in this fashion. Certain of these provisions, e.g., the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, would provide the basis for cases that, absent a standing question, could not readily be excluded from the federal courts as involving political questions, or as otherwise unsuitable for adjudication under the principles formulated for these purposes by the Court. Compare United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75 , 330 U. S. 94 -96; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 . Indeed, it might even be urged that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, since they are largely confirmatory of rights created elsewhere in the Constitution, were intended to declare the standing of individual citizens to contest the validity of governmental activities. It may, of course, also be argued that these amendments are merely "tub[s] for the whale," 1 W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution 688 (1953); nut lacking such an argument, any doctrine of standing premised upon the generality or relative importance of a constitutional command would, I think, very substantially increase the number of situations in which individual citizens could present for adjudication "generalized grievances about the conduct of government." I take it that the Court, apart from my Brother DOUGLAS, and I are agreed that any such consequence would be exceedingly undesirable.
My premise is, as I have suggested, that non-Hohfeldian plaintiffs as such are not excluded by Article III from the jurisdiction of the federal courts. The problem is therefore to determine in what situations their suits should be permitted, and not whether a "statute constitutionally could authorize a person who shows no case or controversy to call on the courts. . . ." Scripps-Howard Radio v. Comm'n, 316 U. S. 4 , 316 U. S. 21 (dissenting opinion). I do not, of course, suggest that Congress' power to authorize suits by specified classes of litigants is without constitutional limitation. This Court has recognized a panoply of restrictions upon the actions that may properly be brought in federal courts, or reviewed by this Court after decision in state courts. It is enough now to emphasize that I would not abrogate these restrictions in situations in which Congress has authorized a suit. The difficult case of Muskrat v. United States, 219 U. S. 346 , does not require more. Whatever the other implications of that case, it is enough to note that there, the United States, as statutory defendant, evidently had "no interest adverse to the claimants." Id. at 219 U. S. 361 .
I am aware that there is a second category of cases in which the Court has entertained claims by non-Hohfeldian plaintiffs: suits brought by state or local taxpayers in state courts to vindicate federal constitutional claims. A certain anomaly may be thought to have resulted from the Court's consideration of such cases while it has refused similar suits brought by federal taxpayers in the federal courts. This anomaly, if such it is, will presumably continue even under the standing doctrine announced today, since we are not told that the standing rules will hereafter be identical for the two classes of taxpayers. Although these questions are not now before the Court, I think it appropriate to note that one possible solution would be to hold that standing to raise federal questions is itself a federal question. See Freund, in E. Cahn, Supreme Court and Supreme Law 35 (1954). This would demand partial reconsideration of, for example, Doremus v. Board of Education, 342 U. S. 429 . Cf. United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17 , 362 U. S. 23 , n. 3; Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, 368 U. S. 278 , 368 U. S. 282 ; Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186 , 369 U. S. 204 .

References: § 8
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 8
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.