US vs.
Richardson
Chief Justice Burger
ISSUE:
Whether or not Richardson has the required legal
standing as a federal taxpayer to challenge the Central
Intelligence Agency Act of 1949
FACTS:
William Richardson, a federal taxpayer, filed an action
before the court to declare the CIA Act of 1949
unconstitutional for being violative of the provisions of
Art. 1, Sec. 9, Clause 7 of the US Constitution. Art. 1,
Sec. 9, Clause 7 of the US constitution provides that “no
money shall be drawn from Treasury but in
consequences of appropriations made by law, and a
regular statement of Account of Receipts and
Expenditures of ALL public money shall be published
from time to time. In Richardson’s complaint before the
District Court, he stated that he attempted to obtain
from the Government the information concerning the
detailed expenditures of the CIA in compliance with the
mandate of Art. 1, Section 9 of the constitution.
However, instead of providing him with his requested
detailed information, the Fiscal Service of the Bureau of
Accounts of the Department of Treasury provided him
with the Combined Statement of Account of the
Receipts, Expenditures and Balances of the US
Government, without the information of the CIA
expenditures. He contended that the absence of such
information will prevent him to intelligently follow the
actions of the Congress or the Executive, thus, he will
not be able to properly fulfil his obligation as a member
of the electorate of US. Thus, he asked the court to
issue a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants
from publishing the 'Combined Statement of Receipts,
Expenditures and Balances of the United States Government'
and representing it as the fulfillment of the mandate of Art. 1,
Section 9, Clause 7 of the constitution.
The District Court dismissed the case due to
Richardson’s lack of standing and for being
unjusticiable.
On the other hand, the Court of Appeals, sitting en
banc, reversed the prior decision of the trial court
stating that the case is justiciable, and Richardson has
the required legal standing to bring such action based
on the two-tiered test on taxpayer’s standing laid down
in Flast vs. Cohen.
The CA ruled although he did not attack an
appropriations act unlike in Flast vs Cohen, the CIA Act
of 1949 is integrally related to his ability as a taxpayer.
Now, a petition for certiorari is brought to the SC to
decide in this matter.
RULING:
The Supreme Court held that Richardson does not have
the required legal standing to challenge the CIA Act of
1949.
A two-tiered test on the taxpayer standing was laid
down in Flast vs. Cohen case to which 1)a logical link
between the status of the person as a taxpayer and the
challenged legislative enactment and 2) the nexus
between the status and the specific constitutional
limitation imposed under the taxing and spending
power of the Government must be present. The Court
further explained that it is required that the allegations
made by the taxpayer should challenge an enactment
under the taxing or spending power of the government
and such would exceed the constitutional limitations of
that power. For the party who invokes the judicial
power must be able to show not only that the statute is
invalid, but that he has sustained or is immediately in
danger of sustaining any direct and concrete injury, and
not merely to use the federal court as a forum to air his
generalized grievances about the conduct of the
government or the allocation of the power.
Here, Richardson’s complaints as a taxpayer did not
address the taxing nor the spending power of the
government, but only the statute regulating the CIA. His
failure to allege that he is in danger of suffering any
concrete injury as a result of operation of the said
statute does not gave him the required legal standing to
maintain the relief that he prayed for.
Ripeness requirement – rationale : to prevent courts,
through avoidance of premature adjudicatin, from
entangling themselves in abstract disagreements with
other organs of government

Leading discussion – the fitness of the issues for judicial

decision and the hardship of the parties of withholding
court consideration.

1. Determination whether the litigant has stated a

claim on which the relief can be granted
2. To determine whether the asserted harm of
the litigant is real and concrete (parallel the
legal standing analysis)
3. To serve the goals of a prudent judicial
decisions

Standing doctrine vs. Ripeness doctrine

Rule: That no concrete injury is established on the basis

of uncertainty whether a statute may be applicable to a
plaintiff in the future.

The ripeness doctrine merges with the standing analysis

Distinction between the standing and ripeness

Standing – threatened or actual injury; analyze the

nature and magnitude of present injuries – concrete,
objective and judicially cognizable

Ripeness – direct and immediate harm; focus on the

substantiality of threatened or actually pending future
injuries. Applying injury analysis on a forward-looking
time frame, the ripeness demand would measure the
present effects and hardships imposed by the threat of
future government action

Ripeness assumes that an asserted injury is sufficient to

support standing, but asks whether the injury is too
contingent or remote to support present adjudication.