Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy
n granting certiorari in the case of DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, the Supreme Court asked the parties to brief whether respondents have standing to challenge Ohio's investment tax credit. Looking at the posture of the case, this essay argues that the Supreme Court is likely sending a signal that it hopes to overturn the Sixth Circuit decision on standing grounds and avoid the more difficult question of whether the tax credit is unconstitutional based on the dormant Commerce Clause. This essay applies modern standing doctrine to the Cuno case and concludes that the Cuno plaintiffs do not have standing to raise their claims in federal court. First, this essay examines a circuit split over whether state taxpayers have standing to challenge state taxation and spending. The answer, the essay argues, is that standing limits the ability of state taxpayers like the Cuno plaintiffs to challenge state laws in federal court. Second, this essay further argues that the Court could alternatively overturn the Sixth Circuit's decision on grounds of causation, redressability, or zone-of-interests analysis.
Kristin Hickman, How Did We Get Here Anyway?: Considering the Standing Question in DaimlerChrysler v. Cuno, 4 Geo. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 47 (2006), available at http://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/75.