Constitutional Law 2 | Atty.
Jamon | G01 | CAL
US v. Richardson
418 US 166 | June 25, 1974 | Burger, C. J.
Petitioner: United States
Respondent: William B. Richardson
TOPIC: Case or Controversy Requirement: Elements: Ripeness
DOCTRINE: "It is an established principle that to entitle a private individual
to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or
legislative action he must show that he has sustained or is immediately in
danger of sustaining a direct injury as the result of that action and it is not
sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all members of
the public."
FACTS:
Respondent brought this suit in the U.S. District Court (USDC), alleging that
certain provisions under the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 (CIA
Act) violate Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 7, of the U.S Constitution which provides
that a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures
of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
1967: Respondent requested the Government Printing Office to provide him
with the documents published in compliance with the aforesaid
constitutional provision.
The Fiscal Service of the Bureau of Accounts of the Department of the
Treasury explained that it published the document known as the
Combined Statement of Receipts, Expenditures, and Balances of the
United States Government (questioned document).
Respondent asked them if he could receive further information on the
expenditures of the CIA but they could not produce such.
He then asserted that the CIA Act was repugnant to the Constitution as
the questioned document does not fulfill the aforesaid constitutional
provision.
According to him, the CIA Act only permits the Agency to account for its
expenditures solely on the certificate of the Director.
The only injury alleged by respondent was that he was given a
fraudulent document regarding the expenditures and receipts of the
CIA.
The USDC dismissed the case on the ground that respondent lacked
standing under Flast v. Cohen.
The CA reversed, holding that respondent had standing since there was a
"logical link" between his status as a taxpayer and the CIA Act; and
there was a "nexus" between the plaintiff's status and the aforesaid
constitutional provision.
ISSUE: W/N there is controversy ripe for judicial determination.
HELD: NO.
A court cannot pronounce any statute unconstitutional unless it is called
upon to adjudge the legal rights of litigants in actual controversies.
The party must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of
sustaining some direct injury as the result of the enforcement of the statute,
and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people
generally.
He must allege such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as
to assure concrete adverseness upon which the court so largely depends for
illumination of difficult constitutional questions.
In this case, respondent makes no claim that appropriated funds are being
spent in violation of a specific constitutional limitation upon the taxing and
spending power. Rather, he asks the courts to compel the Government to
give him information on precisely how the CIA spends its funds.
Thus there is no "logical nexus" between the asserted status of taxpayer and
the claimed failure of the Congress to require the Executive to supply a more
detailed report of the expenditures of that agency.
He has not alleged that, as a taxpayer, he is in danger of suffering any
particular concrete injury as a result of the operation of this statute. He is
merely employing a federal court as a forum in which to air his generalized
grievances about the conduct of government which is not a basis for
standing.
WHEREFORE, the CA judgement is REVERSED.