United States v. Richardson

United States v. Richardson
United States v. Richardson
	U.S. LEXIS 3
Holding
	There is no standing for a taxpayer bringing a generalized grievance against regulations of an agency's accounting and reporting procedures.
Court membership
	Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices William O. Douglas · William J. Brennan Jr.; Potter Stewart · Byron White; Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun; Lewis F. Powell Jr. · William Rehnquist
Case opinions
Majority	Burger, joined by White, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist
Concurrence	Powell
Dissent	Douglas
Dissent	Brennan
Dissent	Stewart, joined by Marshall

United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning standing in which the Court held a taxpayer's interest in government spending was generalized, and too "undifferentiated" to confer Article III standing to challenge a law which exempted Central Intelligence Agency funding from Article I, Section 9 requirements that such expenditures be audited and reported to the public.

Background

In 1949, Congress passed the Central Intelligence Agency Act, which exempted funding for the CIA from financial disclosure.

William B. Richardson, an insurance

United States Constitution, which states "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time." The District Court dismissed the case for standing; the Third Circuit, hearing the case en banc, reversed; in 1973, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.^[3]

Representatives

Robert H. Bork
for the United States et al.
Osmond K. Fraenkel
for the respondent

Opinion of the Court

Frothingham v. Mellon

. Burger concluded:

As our society has become more complex, our numbers more vast, our lives more varied, and our resources more strained, citizens increasingly request the intervention of the courts on a greater variety of issues than at any period of our national development. The acceptance of new categories of judicially cognizable injury has not eliminated the basic principle that, to invoke judicial power, the claimant must have a "personal stake in the outcome, "in short, something more than "generalized grievances,"...^[3]

References

^ Rubach, Michael J. (1974–1975). "Supreme Court Limits Taxpayer Standing". Creighton L. Rev. 8: 523–.
^ "Citizen Files Suit to Force C.I.A. to Disclose Finances". The New York Times. March 29, 1968. Retrieved January 31, 2013.
^ ^a ^b United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974).

External links

Text of United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974) is available from: Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

[1] Rubach, Michael J. (1974–1975). "Supreme Court Limits Taxpayer Standing". Creighton L. Rev. 8: 523–.

[2] "Citizen Files Suit to Force C.I.A. to Disclose Finances". The New York Times. March 29, 1968. Retrieved January 31, 2013.

[opin-3] United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974).

[3]