A taxpayer sues over a federal spending provision that provides textbooks to students with no religious instruction; The taxpayer claims establishment clause; Standing?

• A. Taxpayers generally lack standing to challenge spending statutes.
• B. Standing requires a special nexus between taxpayer and government action.
• C. Taxpayers have standing when the spending violates the Establishment Clause.
• D. The distribution of books funded by federal funds is state action.

Answer: (C)

Taxpayer standing to challenge federal spending under the Establishment Clause exists under the Flast v. Cohen framework. The test has two key parts: first, the challenged statute must fall within Congress’s taxing and spending power; second, there must be a logical nexus between the taxpayer’s status and the specific expenditure being challenged—that is, the taxpayer must show that his tax payments are the basis for the funding and that the challenged spending has a potential Establishment Clause problem.

In this scenario, the federal provision funds textbooks for students, which is a federal spending action within Congress’s taxing and spending power. A taxpayer can meet the necessary nexus by showing he paid taxes that fund this program and that the program is being challenged on Establishment Clause grounds. Even though the program is neutrally described and not aimed at advancing religion, the standing to bring an Establishment Clause challenge to federal spending is recognized if the Flast criteria are satisfied.

So the best answer is that taxpayers have standing when the spending violates the Establishment Clause, reflecting the Flast framework. The other options either overstate the general rule against taxpayer suits (which Flast narrows) or focus on alternative theories (the “nexus” concept is part of Flast, but the overall standing result follows from the established exception for Establishment Clause challenges to federal spending).