ABSTRACT
In Flast v. Cohen, 392 US 83, the US Supreme Court established guidelines for determining when individuals, in their capacity as taxpayers, may challenge the constitutionality of taxing and spending programs. The Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren, believing that the assumptions underpinning Froth- ingham had become less compelling, sought to reconsider in Flast v. Cohen the Court's long-standing position on taxpayer standing. The Supreme Court, by an eight-one margin, held that Frothingham established no blanket rule against taxpayer lawsuits. Such lawsuits, said Chief Justice Warren, were consistent with traditional notions of standing, provided that the taxpayers could sufficiently establish their personal stake in the dispute to guarantee that proceedings would indeed be adversarial. Flast promised a substantial expansion of access to federal courts for parties seeking judicial remedies for allegedly unconstitutional spending programs. Flast featured a challenge to disbursements made under the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which provided federal funding to educate children from low-income families.
