[1] The Supreme Court decided in Frothingham v. Mellon (1923), that a taxpayer did not have standing to sue the federal government to prevent expenditures if his only injury is an anticipated increase in taxes.

Rather, it denied standing because the petitioner did not allege "a breach by Congress of the specific constitutional limitations imposed upon an exercise of the taxing and spending power."

In 1968, Florence Flast joined several others in filing a lawsuit against Wilbur Cohen, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, contending that spending funds on religious schools violated the First Amendment's ban on the establishment of religion.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Earl Warren established a "double nexus" test which a taxpayer must satisfy in order to have standing.

Justice Potter Stewart also concurred, emphasizing the ruling permitted standing where "a specific expenditure of federal funds violates the Establishment Clause."

Justice Abe Fortas wrote similarly but advocated further to "confine the ruling" strictly to cases of federal expenditure in violation of the Establishment Clause.

Harlan argued that this ruling would upset the balance of powers, leading the Court towards becoming the "Council of Revision" as proposed but ultimately rejected in the Constitutional Convention.