Opinion ID: 109087
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Taxpayer Standing

Text: Consideration of whether respondents have standing to sue as taxpayers raises a different question from whether they may sue as citizens. Flast v. Cohen, supra , established that status as a taxpayer can, under certain limited circumstances, supply the personal stake essential to standing. There, the Court held that, in order to ensure the necessary personal stake, there must be a logical nexus between the [taxpayer] status asserted and the claim sought to be adjudicated, 392 U. S., at 102. In Flast, the Court determined that the taxpayer demonstrated such a logical nexus because, (1) he challenged the exercise of congressional power under the taxing and spending clause of Art. I, § 8 . . . and (2) the challenged enactment exceed[ed] specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of the congressional taxing and spending power under Art. I, § 8. Id., at 102-103. Here, the District Court, applying the Flast holding, denied respondents' standing as taxpayers for failure to satisfy the nexus test. We agree with that conclusion since respondents did not challenge an enactment under Art. I, § 8, but rather the action of the Executive Branch in permitting Members of Congress to maintain their Reserve status. [17] Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.