Opinion ID: 3040705
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application of DaimlerChrysler

Text: Applying the reasoning of DaimlerChrysler to the facts of the case at hand, we conclude that Plaintiffs do not have standing as state taxpayers to challenge the appropriation of state revenue to OHA. Plaintiffs argue that they meet the test for standing under DaimlerChrysler because (1) their injury is concrete and particularized, (2) the depletion of the state treasury is actual and ongoing, and (3) the injury they suffer is redressable through declaratory and injunctive relief. We address each contention in turn. [10] First, Plaintiffs maintain that because they “are required to pay taxes to support racial discrimination against themselves,” they suffer a particularized injury that “is not shared by people in general or by Hawaii state taxpayers generally, but only by [taxpayers] . . . who lack the favored [native-Hawaiian] ancestry” and benefit from OHA programs. But Plaintiffs do not allege that they have suffered any harm apart from the fact that they are taxpayers and do not like ARAKAKI v. LINGLE 1599 OHA’s programs. Plaintiffs’ argument, taken to its logical conclusion, would significantly expand state taxpayer Article III standing by allowing a taxpayer to challenge any governmental expenditure he does not like and for which he has not applied: Expenditures from the common fisc for veteran’s benefits could be challenged by any taxpayer who had not served in the military; welfare benefits could be challenged by any individual not on welfare; educational expenditures could be invalidated by a suit brought by an individual who does not have children in the public school system. Under Plaintiffs’ theory, even the Ohio taxpayers in DaimlerChrysler could argue that while all Ohio taxpayers bore the burden of the depletion of funds from the fisc, taxpayers who were employed by DaimlerChrysler received a benefit in the form of a paycheck and thus a taxpaying non-employee suffers a particularized injury. We think that the Court’s reasoning in DaimlerChrysler extends to such creative arguments. As the Court noted, conferring standing on state taxpayers “simply because their tax burden gives them an interest in the state treasury would interpose the federal courts as virtually continuing monitors of the wisdom and soundness of state fiscal administration, contrary to the more modest role Article III envisions for federal courts.” DaimlerChrysler, 126 S. Ct. at 1864 (internal quotations omitted). We decline to play such a role and accordingly reject Plaintiffs’ contention that they suffer a particularized injury. [11] Second, Plaintiffs assert the injury they suffer is “actual, imminent and ongoing” as the State Legislature continues to appropriate sums from the General Fund for OHA. They contrast this with the Supreme Court holding in DaimlerChrysler, which they characterize as involving a tax rebate that was a “conjectural” depletion of the state treasury. However, the plaintifs misapprehend what we look to when determining whether the injury is “conjectural or hypothetical. As the Supreme Court noted, a plaintiff’s injury is “conjectural or hypothetical” when it “depends on how legislators respond” to a change in revenue. DaimlerChrysler, 126 S. Ct. 1600 ARAKAKI v. LINGLE at 1862. Plaintiffs here overlook the fact that whether or not their injury is redressable is entirely speculative. It is not certain that even if all funding for OHA were terminated, that the Legislature would pass the savings on to the Plaintiffs in the form of tax breaks or refrain from spending the funds on programs benefitting yet another subgroup of the Hawaiian population to which Plaintiffs do not belong. The flow of funds from the treasury to support OHA is actual and concrete; what the Legislature would do with those funds absent OHA is speculative. [12] Third, Plaintiffs assert that their injury is redressable through declaratory or injunctive relief. For the reasons stated above, any benefit that would accrue to Plaintiffs from an injunction or declaratory judgement is speculative. Plaintiffs argue that the Supreme Court has allowed individuals who can allege a distinct and palpable injury to themselves to sue and invoke the public interest even if the injury is shared by a large class of other potential litigants. However, these cases are readily distinguishable and involved core functions of our democracy, such as voting, see Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (involving a justiciable question of voting district apportionment); see Harper v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) (striking down a poll tax), or issues of economic liberty outside the taxation context, see McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961) (involving harm from economic loss and fines from Sunday Closing Laws). The Court has consistently denied both federal and state taxpayers standing under Article III to object to a particular expenditure of funds simply because they are taxpayers. See, e.g., Valley Forge, 454 U.S. 464 (denying standing to taxpayers to challenge conveyance of government land to a private religious college); Reservists Comm., 418 U.S. 208 (denying taxpayers standing to challenge members of Congress’ membership in armed forces reserve units); United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974) (denying taxpayer standing to force publication of the receipts and expenditures of the CIA); Doremus v. Bd. of Educ., 342 U.S. 429 (1952) (holding that the rationales ARAKAKI v. LINGLE 1601 for rejecting federal taxpayer standing apply with equal force to state taxpayer suits); Ala. Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U.S. 464, 478 (1938) (holding that “the interest of a taxpayer in the moneys of the federal treasury furnishes no basis” to argue that a federal agency’s practices are unconstitutional). The Court has allowed some Establishment Clause challenges to federal spending to go forward, but this is a narrow exception, not the rule. The Court has declined to extend this exception to other areas. See, e.g., DaimlerChrysler, 126 S. Ct. at 186465; Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 618 (1988) (“Although we have considered the problem of standing and Article III limitations on federal jurisdiction many times since [Flast], we have consistently adhered to Flast and the narrow exception it created to the general rule against taxpayer standing . . . .”); Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968) (creating an exception for Establishment Clause challenges to the general standing bar for taxpayer suits). [13] In sum, we hold that these “state taxpayers have no standing under Article III to challenge [Hawaii] state tax or spending decision simply by virtue of their status as taxpayers.” DaimlerChrysler, 126 S. Ct. at 1864. Although it appears to us that there are no plaintiffs who have standing to challenge the OHA funding, we are unwilling to make that final judgment on this record before us. Accordingly, we remand to the district court for further proceedings.