Taxing and Spending Clause

And essentially, you know, what do election systems as critical infrastructure vulnerable to terrorist attack have to do with citizenship verification? Then he said if there were any doubt about how to read the statute, the major questions doctrine would compel the same result.

And finally, he said that adopting the defendant's interpretation would put the statute's constitutionality in doubt because the Supreme Court says that the Spending Clause, Congress's power to set the terms on dispersing funds under the Spending Clause, is limited to conditions that are reasonably related to the purpose of the expenditure.

And again, this isn't reasonably related to these counterterrorism aims.

Even the government had admitted this was about strengthening the integrity of and supporting public confidence in US elections.

Right.

Flast allows a taxpayer to challenge legislative spending under the Taxing and Spending Clause that allegedly violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The logic is that the Establishment Clause was historically specifically designed to prevent the government from using tax money to fund religion.

So in that one specific instance, being a taxpayer is enough of an injury.

The exceedingly narrow Flast exception.

It allows taxpayers to challenge specific congressional spending under the Taxing and Spending Clause that allegedly violates the Establishment Clause

Meaning the government is directly funding religion

Exactly, but structurally, for any other constitutional claim, taxpayer standing is a complete dead end