Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War
418 U.S. 208 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A citizen's generalized interest in constitutional governance, without a particularized and concrete injury, is insufficient to confer standing to sue in federal court under Article III of the Constitution.
Facts:
- The Reservists Committee to Stop the War, an unincorporated association, and its members were organized to oppose U.S. military involvement in Vietnam.
- The Committee sought to persuade Members of Congress to end that involvement through lawful means.
- At the time the suit was filed, approximately 130 Members of the U.S. Congress also held commissions as members of the Armed Forces Reserve.
- The Committee alleged that this dual status violated the Constitution's Incompatibility Clause, which prohibits a person holding an 'Office under the United States' from being a Member of Congress.
- The Committee claimed this dual membership created a conflict of interest, subjected legislators to potential undue influence from the Executive Branch, and deprived citizens of the faithful and independent representation to which they were entitled.
Procedural Posture:
- The Reservists Committee to Stop the War sued the Secretary of Defense in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The District Court denied standing to the plaintiffs as taxpayers or reservists but granted them standing as citizens.
- On the merits, the District Court granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs, issuing a declaration that the Incompatibility Clause renders a Member of Congress ineligible to hold a commission in the Armed Forces Reserve.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, affirmed the District Court's judgment without a written opinion.
- The Secretary of Defense (Schlesinger) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
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 U.S. citizen, solely by virtue of their citizenship, have standing to sue federal officials to enforce the Incompatibility Clause of the Constitution (Art. I, § 6, cl. 2) without alleging a direct and particularized injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
No. A citizen does not have standing to sue based on a generalized grievance about the conduct of government. To establish standing, a plaintiff must allege a concrete and particularized injury, not an abstract injury shared in common with all members of the public. The respondents' claim—that Members of Congress holding Reserve commissions might be subject to Executive influence, thereby depriving citizens of faithful representation—is a speculative and undifferentiated harm. This interest in constitutional governance is an abstract injury insufficient to satisfy the 'case or controversy' requirement of Article III. Following the precedent of Ex parte Lévitt, standing cannot be predicated on an interest held by all citizens. The court also rejected taxpayer standing, finding that the respondents challenged an action of the Executive Branch, not a congressional enactment under the taxing and spending power as required by the test in Flast v. Cohen.
Concurring - Justice Stewart
No. The respondents lack standing because none has alleged the sort of direct, palpable injury required for standing under Article III. Their claim is merely a 'generalized grievance about the conduct of government,' which is insufficient to confer standing. Unlike cases where a plaintiff alleges the government has refused to perform a specific, affirmative duty imposed by the Constitution, this case involves an abstract complaint. Furthermore, taxpayer standing under Flast v. Cohen is inapplicable as there is no challenge to an exercise of the congressional taxing and spending power.
Dissenting - Justice Douglas
Yes. The respondents have standing both as citizens and as taxpayers. The people are sovereign, and citizens have a right to have the Constitution enforced, particularly a provision like the Incompatibility Clause designed to prevent Executive influence over the Legislature. The personal stake required for standing is the citizen's interest in keeping the constitutional framework intact. Furthermore, respondents have taxpayer standing because Congress appropriates funds to pay for reservists, and the Incompatibility Clause operates as a specific constitutional limitation on such expenditures, fitting the logic of Flast v. Cohen.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes. The respondents' injury is not an abstract or generalized grievance. They are a specific group organized to persuade Congress to end the war in Vietnam, asserting their First Amendment rights. They alleged a direct and concrete injury: their advocacy is less effective because the Congressmen they seek to persuade are subject to a conflict of interest that violates the Incompatibility Clause. It is a sad commentary that a court will hear a claim of aesthetic injury to natural resources but will turn away a claim that a constitutional violation has interfered with the effectiveness of expression protected by the First Amendment.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes. The only requirement for standing should be a good-faith allegation of 'injury in fact.' The respondents' allegation that they are injured as taxpayers is a sufficient allegation of injury to maintain their suit. The Court's further inquiry into a 'nexus' or 'zone of interests' is irrelevant to standing and should be considered, if at all, as part of the merits of the case. The two-pronged test from Flast v. Cohen was fashioned for Establishment Clause cases and should not be extended to create confusion in different contexts.
Analysis:
This case, along with its companion case United States v. Richardson, significantly narrowed the doctrine of standing and marked a retreat from the more expansive approach of the Warren Court. It firmly established that a 'generalized grievance' shared by all or a large class of citizens is not a 'case or controversy' justiciable in federal court. The decision makes it substantially more difficult for citizens to challenge the constitutionality of government actions unless they can demonstrate a personal, concrete, and particularized injury, effectively closing the courthouse door to many public interest lawsuits.
Unlock the full brief for Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War