Writing for the Court, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor held that the Respondents lacked standing to bring their suit in Federal Court. O’Connor began by establishing that the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III of the Constitution is a fundamental limit on federal judicial power that was designed to ensure that the judiciary doesn’t intrude upon the power Executive or Legislative branches.

O’Connor explained that to have standing in federal court, a plaintiff must allege a personal injury that’s “distinct and palpable” and “fairly traceable” to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct, and it must be likely to be redressed by the requested relief. Such requirements prevent the courts from becoming a forum for generalized grievances about how the government is being run, which is the role of the political branches.

O’Connor rejected the Respondents’ first claim that the denigration suffered by black citizens when the government provides financial aid to discriminatory schools constituted a “stigmatic injury” that could provide standing. O’Connor explained that such a claim is only able to provide standing if the plaintiffs have personally been denied equal treatment by the institutions in question. Since the Respondents didn’t seek to enroll their children in the private schools, their injury was abstract and lacked the personal stake required by Article III. O’Connor noted that if standing were granted on this basis, any citizen could challenge any government action they found ideologically or morally offensive, which would turn the courts into monitors of the Executive Branch’s internal administrative policies.

Regarding the Respondent’s second claimed injury that the government’s actions impaired their children’s right to an integrated education, O’Connor found that it failed the causation and redressability prongs of the standing test. While O’Connor conceded that the Respondents established “causation in-fact” regarding their injury, they couldn’t show that their injury was “fairly traceable” to the alleged unlawful action since their claim relied on the independent and unpredictable decisions of third-party parents not party to the suit. On whether the alleged injury was likely to be redressed by the requested relief, O’Connor emphasized that it was purely speculative whether the withdrawal of tax-exempt status would actually lead to school integration.

She argued that allowing such a suit would force the judiciary to oversee the IRS’ enforcement of the law, which would violate the Executive Branch’s duty under Article II to “faithfully execute the laws.” Ultimately, the Court held that the Respondents lacked standing to bring the suit.