On June 10, 1968, the Court issued an 8–1 decision. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice
Earl Warren established a "double nexus" test which a taxpayer must satisfy in order to have standing. First, he must "establish a logical link between [taxpayer] status and the type of legislative enactment attacked." Second, "show that the challenged enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations upon 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." Only when both nexuses have been satisfied may the petitioner have standing to sue.
Ruling The Court ruled that petitioners had satisfied both nexuses and therefore had standing to sue as taxpayers. First, their status as taxpayers only conferred standing to complain that expenditures made under the Congressional power to spend for the general welfare under the
Tax and Spend Clause were unconstitutional. Second, the Establishment Clause specifically limited the taxing and spending power:
Concurring Opinions Justice
William O. Douglas advocated dealing with the seeming contradiction by
overturning Frothingham completely. Justice
Potter Stewart also concurred, emphasizing the ruling permitted standing where "a specific expenditure of federal funds violates the
Establishment Clause." Justice
Abe Fortas wrote similarly but advocated further to "confine the ruling" strictly to cases of federal expenditure in violation of the Establishment Clause.
Dissent In a strongly worded dissent, Justice
John Marshall Harlan argued against the majority's decision. Harlan believed that
Frothingham was correct in its conclusion, despite his disagreement with some of its reasoning. He argued that the United States collects and holds taxes not as a "stakeholder or trustee" for taxpayers, but as a "surrogate for the population at large." Therefore, in alignment with
Frothingham, Harlan believed that individuals did not have
standing as taxpayers to sue over federal expenditures. He also expressed concern about the potential abuse of public actions, legal actions brought on behalf of the public, resulting from this ruling. Harlan argued that this ruling would upset the balance of powers, leading the Court towards becoming the "
Council of Revision" as proposed but ultimately rejected in the Constitutional Convention. == Significance ==