Franklet v. United State concerns a tax return filed by Sharon Franklet and groups together seven other related cases, wherein the plaintiffs, with the support of the ACLU, object on moral, ethical, or religious grounds to the use of their money as taxpayers to support the U.S. military. As stipulated by the tax code, each of the plaintiffs was assessed a penalty of $500 for filing what the I.R.S. refers to as a "frivolous" tax return (many plaintiffs also objected to the use and interpretation of the word "frivolous"). Then - also, as stipulated by tax code - each paid 15%, or $75, in order to demand a refund and abatement from the I.R.S., which the I.R.S. then denied for each applicant.

The plantiffs argued that the penalties attempted to restrict their 1. right to petition the government for redress of grievances, 2. free exercise of religion, and 3. freedom of expression. They also challenged this specific portion of the tax code on grounds of vagueness and overbreadth, and argued that they had been denied due process. All of the arguments were dismissed and denied, with the court siding with the United States in all eight cases. The court quoted a recent Supreme Court judgement which stated, "The tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief."