DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno
547 U.S. 332 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
State taxpayers do not have standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to challenge state tax or spending decisions in federal court simply by virtue of their taxpayer status, as their alleged injury is too generalized and speculative to constitute a case or controversy.
Facts:
- The State of Ohio offered a franchise tax credit to corporations that purchased and installed new manufacturing machinery and equipment within the state.
- The city of Toledo was authorized under Ohio law to offer property tax waivers to businesses that agreed to invest in designated areas.
- In 1998, DaimlerChrysler Corporation entered into an agreement with the city of Toledo to expand its Jeep assembly plant located in the city.
- In exchange for this investment, Toledo, with the consent of local school districts, granted DaimlerChrysler a property tax exemption for the plant.
- As part of the expansion, DaimlerChrysler purchased new manufacturing equipment, which made it eligible for, and entitled it to, Ohio's state franchise tax credit.
- A group of taxpayers, residents of Toledo and Ohio, claimed that these tax benefits granted to DaimlerChrysler diminished the public funds of the city and state, thereby imposing a disproportionate burden on them.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, a group of taxpayers, originally filed suit against DaimlerChrysler and various state and local officials in an Ohio state court.
- Defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
- Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court, arguing they had 'substantial doubts' about their standing to sue in federal court.
- The District Court denied the motion to remand, concluding the plaintiffs had standing, and subsequently granted summary judgment for the defendants on the merits, upholding the tax provisions.
- Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling on the local property tax exemption but reversed regarding the state franchise tax credit, holding that it violated the Commerce Clause.
- Defendants (DaimlerChrysler and the officials) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted to address the Commerce Clause issue and the question of plaintiffs' standing.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state taxpayer have standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to challenge a state tax credit in federal court on the grounds that the credit injures them by unconstitutionally depleting state funds and increasing their tax burden?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Roberts
No. A state taxpayer does not have standing under Article III to challenge a state tax credit in federal court simply because of their taxpayer status. The principles that bar federal taxpayers from suing over federal expenditures apply with equal force to state taxpayers challenging state fiscal decisions. The asserted injury is not a concrete and particularized injury, but rather a generalized grievance shared with all taxpayers. Furthermore, any alleged financial harm is conjectural, as it speculatively assumes that the tax credit depletes the treasury (rather than stimulating growth) and that lawmakers would respond to its elimination by reducing the plaintiffs' tax burden. The narrow exception for taxpayer standing in Establishment Clause cases under Flast v. Cohen does not extend to Commerce Clause challenges, as the alleged injuries are fundamentally different. Finally, standing for one claim (like a municipal tax challenge) does not confer supplemental standing for a separate claim (a state tax challenge) for which the plaintiff independently lacks a constitutionally sufficient injury.
Concurring - Justice Ginsburg
I agree with the judgment that taxpayers lack standing in this case. This conclusion is correct based on longstanding precedents like Frothingham v. Mellon and Doremus v. Board of Ed. of Hawthorne, which properly bar generalized taxpayer grievances from federal courts. However, I write separately to express my reservations about the Court's more recent and restrictive standing jurisprudence developed in cases like Lujan and Allen, which goes beyond the principles of these foundational taxpayer standing cases. While I concur in the judgment and the bulk of the Court's opinion as it applies to this specific context, I do not endorse those later, broader limitations on standing.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the high bar for taxpayer standing in federal court, explicitly extending the rule against federal taxpayer standing from Frothingham v. Mellon to state taxpayers. By declining to extend the narrow Flast v. Cohen exception, the Court significantly curtails the ability of citizens to use the Commerce Clause to challenge state tax incentives and economic development policies in federal court. The ruling reinforces the separation of powers, steering such generalized grievances away from the judiciary and toward the political branches. It also clarifies that Article III standing must be established for each distinct claim, preventing plaintiffs from using supplemental jurisdiction to litigate claims for which they have not suffered a direct and personal injury.
Unlock the full brief for DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno