## Facts

- Arizona enacted Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 43-1089, granting a state income tax credit to individuals who voluntarily contribute to “school tuition organizations” (STOs).
- STOs use contributed funds to provide scholarships for students attending private schools, including religious schools.
- Arizona taxpayers sued the state revenue director, alleging the program violated the Establishment Clause by directing financial support to religious schools.
- Several STOs, including Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, intervened to defend the program.
- The district court dismissed the complaint.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed and, sitting en banc, held the taxpayers had standing under *Flast v. Cohen* and could proceed on the Establishment Clause claim.

## Issues

1. Whether state taxpayers have Article III standing under *Flast v. Cohen* to challenge a state tax credit program alleged to aid religion.
2. Whether a tax credit supporting private contributions to scholarship entities is treated as government “expenditure” for taxpayer-standing purposes.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and ordered dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Court held, 5–4, that the taxpayer plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because they challenged a tax credit rather than a governmental expenditure.
- The Court did not reach the merits of the Establishment Clause claim.

## Legal Principles

- Article III standing requires a concrete injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the challenged government action and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.
- Federal courts generally do not allow taxpayer standing based solely on a plaintiff’s status as a taxpayer because the asserted injury is typically generalized and speculative.
- *Flast v. Cohen* provides a narrow taxpayer-standing exception for certain Establishment Clause challenges to legislative exercises of the taxing and spending power involving specific appropriations from the public fisc.
- A tax credit tied to private, voluntary contributions is not treated as a governmental extraction and spending of tax funds for purposes of the *Flast* exception.
- Where the alleged fiscal and constitutional effects depend on decisions of private actors (contributors, STOs, parents), causation and redressability are too attenuated to establish taxpayer standing.

## Conclusion

The Court held that state taxpayers could not invoke the narrow Establishment Clause taxpayer-standing exception to challenge a tax credit program funding scholarships for private schools, including religious schools, because the challenged mechanism was a tax credit driven by private choices rather than a direct governmental expenditure.


Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125 (2011)