Daimlerchrysler Corporation v. Charlotte Cuno et al.
The Court unanimously ruled that state taxpayers did not have standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to challenge state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of their status as taxpayers.
547 U.S. 332 · No. 04-1704 · 2005 term · Roberts Court
Decided May 15, 2006 · argued Mar 1, 2006
Judicial power · Standing to sue: taxpayer's suit
Majority opinion: John Roberts
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Vacated and remanded. Daimlerchrysler Corporation won.
What this ruling means
Vacated and remanded: the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, wiping it out without necessarily saying the result was wrong, and sent the case back for that court to decide again under the right legal standard.
Daimlerchrysler Corporation 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.
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the standing of taxpayers to challenge state tax laws in federal court. The Court unanimously ruled that state taxpayers did not have standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to challenge state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of their status as taxpayers. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion (his fifth on the Court), which was joined by all of the justices except for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who concurred separately.
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 2005 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
John RobertsWrote the majority opinion
Ruth GinsburgWrote a concurrence
John StevensJoined the majority
David SouterJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Antonin ScaliaJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
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
- Daimlerchrysler CorporationAuto manufacturer
- Respondent
- Charlotte Cuno et al.State or local governmental taxpayer, or executor of the estate (Ohio)
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
- Why it was taken
- Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
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 (state 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.
- May 15, 2006DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: vacated and remanded. Daimlerchrysler Corporation won.
- Mar 1, 2006ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit: affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Ohio Northern 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
- Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., et al.454 U.S. 464Jan 12, 1982 · 454 U.S. 464Judicial power5–45–4 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.