# Flast v. Cohen > Supreme Court of the United States · June 10, 1968 · 392 U.S. 83 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423765 ## Case - **Full name:** FLAST Et Al. v. COHEN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Et Al. - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** June 10, 1968 - **Citations:** 392 U.S. 83; 88 S. Ct. 1942; 20 L. Ed. 2d 947; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1347 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Stewart - **Judges:** Douglas, Warren, Stewart, Fortas, Harlan - **Cited by:** 3,117 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Yellow flag:** Questioned by Kong v. Scully, 341 F.3d 1132 (2003). - Negative treatments: 2 - Distinguished by: 2 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423765 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that taxpayers have an adequate stake in the outcome of Establishment Clause litigation to satisfy Article III standing requirements, after stating that “[o]ur history vividly illustrates that one of the specific evils feared by those who drafted the Establishment Clau… - explaining that “[t]he plurality of the Court made clear in Hein that only ‘expenditures made pursuant to an express congressional mandate and a specific congressional appropriation’ met the first nexus requirement; the plurality rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that any ‘expend… - recognizing that Article III justiciability is "a concept of uncertain meaning and scope," and employing iceberg metaphor to describe the words "cases" and "controversies," which, the Court cautioned, "contain[ ] beneath their surface simplicity submerged complexities which go… - explaining that “no justiciable controversy is presented when ... the parties are asking for an advisory opinion” and that the “oldest and most consistent thread in the federal law of justiciability is that the federal courts will not give advisory opinions” - finding that "when standing is placed in issue in a case, the question is whether the person whose standing is challenged is a proper party to request an adjudication of a particular issue and not whether the issue itself is justiciable” ## Opinion text Mr. Justice Stewart, concurring. 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. As the Court notes, “one of the specific evils feared by those who drafted the Establishment Clause and fought for its adoption was that the taxing and spending power would be used to favor one religion over another or to support religion in general.” Ante, at 103. Today’s decision no more than recognizes that the appellants have a clear stake as taxpayers in assuring that they not be compelled to contribute even “three pence ... of [their] property for the support of any one establishment.” Ihid. In concluding that the appellants therefore have standing to sue, we do not undermine the salutary principle, established by Frothingham and reaffirmed today, that a taxpayer may not “employ a federal court as a forum in which to air his generalized grievances about the conduct of government or the allocation of power in the Federal System.” Ante, at 106. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423765. Public record. Not legal advice.