Hein v. Freedom Fro — Scalia, J…

Summary

Justice Scalia concurred in the judgment, arguing that taxpayer standing under Flast v. Cohen rests on an untenable concept of "psychic injury" that violates Article III standing requirements. He criticized the plurality's distinction between congressional and executive spending as meaningless and called for overruling Flast entirely. Justice Souter dissented, while Justice Kennedy concurred separately on separation-of-powers grounds.