Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, Petitioner v. Kathleen M. Winn et al.
The case concerned Arizona taxpayers who challenged a state tax credit for donations to school tuition organizations funding private or religious schools, and the Court ruled that the taxpayers lacked standing to sue.· AI-written
563 U.S. 125 · No. 09-987 · 2010 term · Roberts Court
Decided Apr 4, 2011 · argued Nov 3, 2010
Judicial power · Standing to sue: direct injury
Majority opinion: Anthony Kennedy
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Reversed. Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, Petitioner won.
What this ruling means
Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, and its own ruling ends the case.
Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, Petitioner 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.
Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving taxpayer standing under Article Three of the United States Constitution.
A group of Arizona taxpayers challenged a state law providing tax credits to people who donate to school tuition organizations providing scholarships to students attending private or religious schools. The taxpayers claimed a violation of the Establishment Clause. The District Court dismissed the case, holding that the taxpayers did not state a valid claim. The decision was reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the respondents had standing to sue, citing Flast v. Cohen.
The Supreme Court ruled 5–4, in an opinion delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue. The Court stated that it had "rejected the general proposition that an individual who has paid taxes has a 'continuing, legally cognizable interest in ensuring that those funds are not used by the Government in a way that violates the Constitution.'" Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that any damages or harm claimed by the taxpayers by virtue of simply being a taxpayer would be pure speculation because the issue at hand was a tax credit and not a government expenditure. Justice Scalia filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Thomas.
In her dissent, Justice Kagan said "cash grants and targeted tax breaks are means of accomplishing the same government objective—to provide financial support to select individuals or organizations." She further argued: "taxpayers should be able to challenge the subsidy." The dissent was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Bruce Peabody, a political science professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University, remarked "the case brought out four dissents, a signal that those justices were prepared to decide the substantive issue." Equally, Peter Woolley, professor of political science and director of the PublicMind Poll, posited "in making this ruling on such narrow grounds, the court virtually guarantees that plaintiff in one guise or another will be back another day."
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 2010 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Anthony KennedyWrote the majority opinion
Antonin ScaliaWrote a concurrence
John RobertsJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
Elena KaganWrote a dissent
Ruth GinsburgJoined a dissent
Sonia SotomayorJoined a dissent
Stephen BreyerJoined 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
- Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, PetitionerReligious organization, institution, or person
- Respondent
- Kathleen M. Winn et al.State or local governmental taxpayer, or executor of the estate (Arizona)
- 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
- First Amendment (establishment of religion)
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- 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.
- Apr 4, 2011DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: reversed. Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, Petitioner won.
- Nov 3, 2010ArguedArgued · 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, Ninth Circuit: reversed and remanded, with a dissent.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Arizona 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
13 other argued cases since 1946 on standing to sue: direct injury, newest first.
- First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Davenport146 S. Ct. 1114Apr 29, 2026 · 146 S. Ct. 1114Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Carney v. Adams141 S. Ct. 493Dec 10, 2020 · 141 S. Ct. 493Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
- Gill v. Whitford138 S. Ct. 1916Jun 18, 2018 · 138 S. Ct. 1916Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins578 U.S. 330May 16, 2016 · 578 U.S. 330Judicial power6–27–2 band
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus573 U.S. 149Jun 16, 2014 · 573 U.S. 149Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- James R. Clapper, Jr., Director of National Intelligence, et al., Petitioners v. Amnesty International USA et al.568 U.S. 398Feb 26, 2013 · 568 U.S. 398Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Carol Anne Bond, Petitioner v. United StatesLandmark · Federalism564 U.S. 211Jun 16, 2011 · 564 U.S. 211Judicial powerLandmark · Federalism9–0Unanimous band
- Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States, ex rel., Jonathan Stevens529 U.S. 765May 22, 2000 · 529 U.S. 765Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Steel Company, aka Chicago Steel and Pickling Company v. Citizens for a Better Environment523 U.S. 83Mar 4, 1998 · 523 U.S. 83Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Manuel Lujan, Jr., Secretary of the Interior v. Defenders of Wildlife, et al.Landmark504 U.S. 555Jun 12, 1992 · 504 U.S. 555Judicial powerLandmark6–36–3 band
- Virginia v. American Booksellers Association, Inc., et al.484 U.S. 383Jan 25, 1988 · 484 U.S. 383Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
- Simon, Secretary of the Treasury, et al. v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization et al.426 U.S. 26Jun 1, 1976 · 426 U.S. 26Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
- Warth et al. v. Seldin et al.422 U.S. 490Jun 25, 1975 · 422 U.S. 490Judicial power5–45–4 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.