Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 36 views

    Us V Richardson

    Uploaded by

    shivalps
    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent did not have legal standing to challenge a law allowing the CIA to account for its expenditures without a regular public statement. While the respondent claimed this violated the Taxing and Spending Clause, the Court found his grievance was too generalized and he failed to demonstrate a direct injury from the law, as required for legal standing. The CIA Act was upheld.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Us V Richardson

    Uploaded by

    shivalps
    36 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent did not have legal standing to challenge a law allowing the CIA to account for its expenditures without a regular public statement. While the respondent claimed this violated the Taxing and Spending Clause, the Court found his grievance was too generalized and he failed to demonstrate a direct injury from the law, as required for legal standing. The CIA Act was upheld.

    Original Title

    Us v Richardson

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent did not have legal standing to challenge a law allowing the CIA to account for its expenditures without a regular public statement. While the respondent claimed this violated the Taxing and Spending Clause, the Court found his grievance was too generalized and he failed to demonstrate a direct injury from the law, as required for legal standing. The CIA Act was upheld.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    36 views1 page

    Us V Richardson

    Uploaded by

    shivalps
    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent did not have legal standing to challenge a law allowing the CIA to account for its expenditures without a regular public statement. While the respondent claimed this violated the Taxing and Spending Clause, the Court found his grievance was too generalized and he failed to demonstrate a direct injury from the law, as required for legal standing. The CIA Act was upheld.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    CONEJOS HAULO AMPONG LAYLO CHAVEZ Pilapil CELLES LAW 1

    US v. Richardson
    1974 – Burger:

    FACTS
    1. Respondent, as a taxpayer, sued Congress- claims that Central Intelligence Agency Act which
    permist CIA to acct for its expenditures solely on the certificate... and not regular statement and
    acct of public funds, is unconstitutional
    2. District Court dismissed for lack of legal standing; CA reversed DC saying that it satisfied FLast’s
    requirements: 1) challenge an enactment under the Taxing Spending Clause; 2) show a “nexus”
    between the plaintiff’s status and a specifici constitutional limitation on the taxing and spending
    power.

    ISSUE
    Does respondent have legal standing:
    Held: No

    RULING
    1. His are generalized grievances, as they’re about the conduct of the government
    2. His challenge is not about the taxing power but to the statures regulating CIA’s acctg and doesn’t
    provide a “nexus” between his status as a taxpayer and the asserted failure of Congress to require
    more detailed reports of expenditures
    3. Being a generalized grievance, failed to show that he has sustained or is in danger of sustaining
    direct injury as the result of such action

    Concept:

    You might also like