Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., et al.
The court refused to expand the Flast v. Cohen exception to the taxpayer standing rule.
454 U.S. 464 · No. 80-327 · 1981 term · Burger Court
Decided Jan 12, 1982 · argued Nov 4, 1981
Judicial power · Standing to sue: taxpayer's suit
Majority opinion: William Rehnquist
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Reversed. Valley Forge Christian College won.
What this ruling means
Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, and its own ruling ends the case.
Valley Forge Christian College was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464 (1982), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court refused to expand the Flast v. Cohen exception to the taxpayer standing rule.
The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare had disposed of surplus property by conveying it, without charge, to a church-related college.
Plaintiffs sought standing as taxpayers, and alternatively as citizens, claiming that the conveyance of property injured their right to a government that does not establish a religion.
Justice William Rehnquist, writing the majority opinion, upheld the Flast test for taxpayer standing, ruling that plaintiffs lacked standing as taxpayers because they did not challenge an exercise of the Spending Clause. He also rejected the theory of standing as citizens. He held that the court is not merely a forum for "public grievances" brought by "concerned bystanders"; if it were, he reasoned, "the concept of 'standing' would be quite unnecessary".
Justice William J. Brennan Jr., in his dissent, criticized the general prohibition on taxpayer standing established by Frothingham v. Mellon, arguing that standing should not be denied "simply because many people suffer the same injury" or because the injury is indirect. Justice Stevens, in his dissent, called "the difference between a disposition of funds pursuant to the Spending Clause and a disposition of realty pursuant to the Property Clause", "a tenuous distinction".
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1981 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
William RehnquistWrote the majority opinion
Byron WhiteJoined the majority
Lewis PowellJoined the majority
Sandra O'ConnorJoined the majority
Warren BurgerJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
William BrennanWrote a dissent
John StevensWrote a dissent
Thurgood MarshallJoined a dissent
Harry BlackmunJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Valley Forge Christian CollegePrivate school, college, or university
- Respondent
- Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., et al.Taxpayer or executor of taxpayer's estate, federal only
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 1 (case or controversy requirement)
- Kind of law
- Constitution
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national level)
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jan 12, 1982DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: reversed. Valley Forge Christian College won.
- Nov 4, 1981ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit: reversed, with a dissent.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
6 other argued cases since 1946 on standing to sue: taxpayer's suit, newest first.
- Jay F. Hein, Director, White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, et al. v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., et al.551 U.S. 587Jun 25, 2007 · 551 U.S. 587Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Daimlerchrysler Corporation v. Charlotte Cuno et al.547 U.S. 332May 15, 2006 · 547 U.S. 332Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense, et al. v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War et al.418 U.S. 208Jun 25, 1974 · 418 U.S. 208Judicial power6–36–3 band
- United States et al. v. Richardson418 U.S. 166Jun 25, 1974 · 418 U.S. 166Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Flast et al. v. Cohen, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, et al.Landmark · Freedom of religion392 U.S. 83Jun 10, 1968 · 392 U.S. 83Judicial powerLandmark · Freedom of religion8–18–1 band
- Doremus et al. v. Board of Education of the Borough of Hawthorne et al.342 U.S. 429Mar 3, 1952 · 342 U.S. 429Judicial power6–36–3 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.