UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________ ) SCOTT M. ALEXANDER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 25-cv-00788 (APM) ) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________________ ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se Plaintiff Scott Alexander filed this action to challenge the United States

government’s use of taxpayer dollars to fund the unauthorized Economic Support Fund (ESF).

Compl., ECF No. 1, at ¶ 9. According to Plaintiff, congressional authorization for the ESF expired

in 1987, yet the government continues to fund it and, in fiscal year 2023, did so to the tune of

roughly $22 billion. Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff on behalf of himself and a putative class seeks to recoup

the taxes paid to fund the ESF, which in his case amounts to $109.12. Id. ¶¶ 4, 11. He alleges

violations of the Appropriations Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7 and the Anti-Deficiency Act,

(a)(1)(A), and breach of fiduciary duty.

.

The court will dismiss the case sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

See Evans v. Suter, No. 09-5242,

, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 2, 2010) (per curiam)

(“[A] district court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte prior to service on the defendants pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) when, as here, it is evident that the court lacks subject-matter

jurisdiction.”). “[T]he Supreme Court has repeatedly held” that “a taxpayer’s interest in ensuring

that appropriated funds are spent in accordance with the [law] does not suffice to confer Article III

standing.” In re Navy Chaplaincy,

(D.C. Cir. 2008) (citing Hein v. Freedom From Religion Found., Inc.,

(2007) (plurality op.)); see also Arizona Christian

Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn,

, 134 (2011) (“Absent special circumstances, however,

standing cannot be based on a plaintiff’s mere status as a taxpayer.”). Put another way, an

individual who pays taxes does not have a “continuing, legally cognizable interest in ensuring that

those funds are not used by the Government in a way that violates” the law. Hein,

.

Here, Plaintiff does no more than challenge the government’s expenditure of taxpayer

funds on a program whose authorization, he says, has long expired. Compl. ¶ 10. He therefore

has no standing to bring his claims. 1 Accordingly, the court sua sponte dismisses this action

without prejudice.

A final, appealable order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Dated: March 19, 2025 Amit P. Mehta United States District Court Judge

1 The narrow exception recognized in Flast v. Cohen,

(1968), has no application here.

2