Scribd
Upload
71 views

Us V Richardson

The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent did not have legal standing to challenge a law allowing the CIA to account for its expenditures without a regular public statement. While the respondent claimed this violated the Taxing and Spending Clause, the Court found his grievance was too generalized and he failed to demonstrate a direct injury from the law, as required for legal standing. The CIA Act was upheld.

Uploaded by

shivalps
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
71 views

Us V Richardson

The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent did not have legal standing to challenge a law allowing the CIA to account for its expenditures without a regular public statement. While the respondent claimed this violated the Taxing and Spending Clause, the Court found his grievance was too generalized and he failed to demonstrate a direct injury from the law, as required for legal standing. The CIA Act was upheld.

Uploaded by

shivalps
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

CONEJOS HAULO AMPONG LAYLO CHAVEZ Pilapil CELLES LAW 1

US v. Richardson
1974 – Burger:

FACTS
1. Respondent, as a taxpayer, sued Congress- claims that Central Intelligence Agency Act which
permist CIA to acct for its expenditures solely on the certificate... and not regular statement and
acct of public funds, is unconstitutional
2. District Court dismissed for lack of legal standing; CA reversed DC saying that it satisfied FLast’s
requirements: 1) challenge an enactment under the Taxing Spending Clause; 2) show a “nexus”
between the plaintiff’s status and a specifici constitutional limitation on the taxing and spending
power.

ISSUE
Does respondent have legal standing:
Held: No

RULING
1. His are generalized grievances, as they’re about the conduct of the government
2. His challenge is not about the taxing power but to the statures regulating CIA’s acctg and doesn’t
provide a “nexus” between his status as a taxpayer and the asserted failure of Congress to require
more detailed reports of expenditures
3. Being a generalized grievance, failed to show that he has sustained or is in danger of sustaining
direct injury as the result of such action

Concept:

You might also like