In the 1973 case Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense, et al. v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled that members of a citizens' group did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of laws allowing Members of Congress to also serve in the Armed Forces Reserve. The court held that neither their status as taxpayers nor as citizens gave them a direct stake in this controversy and thus they lacked standing under Article III's "case or controversy" requirement for federal jurisdiction. The plaintiffs had argued these dual roles violated both an Incompatibility Clause (prohibiting simultaneous service in Congress and any "Office under the United States") and a clause barring acceptance by any Member of Congress from accepting civil office positions created during their term ("Emoluments Clause"). However, without demonstrating personal injury distinct from general public interest, they were deemed ineligible to sue.

In the dissenting opinion for Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, Justice Douglas argued that all citizens have a right to ensure their government adheres to constitutional principles. He disagreed with the majority's view that taxpayers lack standing unless they can demonstrate direct injury from governmental actions. In his view, every citizen has an interest in ensuring public officials act within legal and ethical boundaries set by law and constitution. Therefore, he believed that members of Congress serving in military reserves represented a conflict of interest violating Article I Section 6 Clause 2 (the Incompatibility Clause) of the Constitution which prohibits individuals from holding two offices simultaneously if one office exercises control over another or is subject to its authority.