October Term 2006 · Docket 06-157
Can taxpayers sue over executive spending that favors religion?
The dispute centers on whether taxpayers can challenge executive spending that allegedly favors religion.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
General Clement argued that taxpayer standing is narrow. He cited Flast v. Cohen. He stated that standing applies to congressional spending.
Justice Scalia questioned the consistency of the position. He noted the establishment clause concern in both cases.
Justice Ginsburg asked if standing exists for congressional legislation. She compared it to the executive order in question.
General Clement argued that denying standing does not stop lawsuits. He noted that directly injured plaintiffs can still sue.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 49-37 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 49-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-51 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 27-27 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 27-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 3-41 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 3-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 3-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 51-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 51-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-9
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the limits of taxpayer standing. It asks if citizens can sue over executive actions that use public funds for religious purposes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 49-37 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 49-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 27-27 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 27-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 3-41 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 3-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 5-23
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 28, 2007.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 3-41 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 3-41
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the Court to deny taxpayer standing for this challenge.
the opposing side wants the Court to allow taxpayers to sue over executive spending.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 49-37 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 49-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 27-27 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 27-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 3-41 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 3-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 5-23
What each side says
General Clement argues that taxpayer standing is limited to specific congressional spending.
Mr. Bowen argues that taxpayers should challenge executive actions favoring religion.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 49-37 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 49-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 27-27 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 27-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 3-41 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 3-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 5-23
What the justices asked
Justice Kennedy asked why the position is consistent with requiring a statute.
Justice Scalia asked if the establishment clause concern applies to both cases.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-51 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 3-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 51-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 51-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-9
Why it matters
This case defines who can challenge government spending. It determines if taxpayers can sue over executive religious favoritism. It shapes the scope of judicial review over public funds.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 49-37 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 49-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 27-27 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 27-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 3-41 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 3-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 5-23
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-51 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 3-41 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 3-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 3-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 51-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 51-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-9
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 49-37 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 49-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 27-27 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 27-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 3-41 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 3-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 49-37 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 49-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 27-27 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 27-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 3-41 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 3-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 5-23
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.