United States v. Richardson

The plaintiff was upset that the reporting of the expenditures of the Central Intelligence Agency was private, when the Constitution provides that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

Whether the plaintiff’s status as a federal taxpayer offers sufficient status for him to bring an action on the constitutionality of a federal provision.

No, not sufficient.

It is not sufficient to establish standing that a person has merely a general interest common to all members of the public.

The absence of any particular individual or class to litigate this type of claim gives support to the argument that the subject matter is committed to the surveillance of Congress, and ultimately to the political process.

Dissent:

When a party is seeking a judicial determination that a defendant owes him an affirmative duty, it seems clear that he has standing to litigate the issue of the existence of this duty once he shows that the defendant has declined to honor his claim