The Oyez Project: Judicial Power Issues - Taxpayer's Suit Arguments

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno - Oral Argument

Wed, 01 Mar 2006 12:00:00 -0500

As part of Ohio's economic development plan, DaimlerChrysler agreed to expand its operations in Toledo in exchange for tax exemptions and tax credits worth roughly $280 million. Charlotte Cuno and others challenged the deal, however, arguing that Ohio had violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution by offering the tax incentives. A federal district court disagreed, ruling for DaimlerChrysler, but on appeal a panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. The panel found that the tax incentives coerced businesses to expand in Ohio at the expense of other states, and were therefore unconstitutional manipulations of interstate commerce.

Flast v. Cohen - Oral Argument

Tue, 12 Mar 1968 12:00:00 -0500

Florence Flast and a group of taxpayers challenged federal legislation that financed the purchase of secular textbooks for use in religious schools. Flast argued that such use of tax money violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A district court held that the federal courts should defer when confronted with taxpayer suits directed against federal spending programs.

United States v. Richardson - Oral Argument

Wed, 10 Oct 1973 12:00:00 -0500

Richardson, a taxpayer interested in activities of the Central Intelligence Agency, sued the government to provide records detailing the CIA's expenditures.

Valley Forge CC v. Americans United - Oral Argument

Wed, 04 Nov 1981 12:00:00 -0500

The Secretary of Defense closed the Valley Forge General Hospital in an effort to reduce the number of military installations in the country. In accordance with a congressional statute regulating the dispersal of surplus government property, part of the hospital's land was given, free-of-charge, to the Valley Forge Christian College.