Taxpayer-resident brought declaratory judgment action against Department of Health and Human Services and its Commissioner, alleging that they were failing to meet their statutory and constitutional duties with respect to abused and neglected children as a result of their “irresponsible” spending decisions.
The Superior Court dismissed for lack of standing. Taxpayer-resident appealed.
The Supreme Court held that taxpayer-resident lacked standing under state constitutional provision allowing declaratory judgment actions challenging unlawful spending of public funds.
State constitutional provision allowing declaratory judgment actions by taxpayer-residents challenging governmental action involving unlawful spending of public funds does not provide the judiciary with the authority to decide whether the State or a local government has invested sufficient resources to address alleged shortcomings or has properly funded the agencies with responsibility for abiding by the legal requirements enacted by the legislature at levels that facilitate legal functioning.
Taxpayer-resident lacked standing, under state constitutional provision allowing declaratory judgment actions by taxpayer-residents challenging governmental action involving unlawful spending of public funds, against Department of Health and Human Services and its Commissioner alleging that they were failing to meet their statutory and constitutional duties with respect to abused and neglected children as a result of their “irresponsible” spending policies involving poor allocation of resources, where taxpayer-resident failed to challenge any specific spending action or spending approval by Department.