Frothingham v. Mellon
Encyclopedia
Frothingham v. Mellon and Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), were two consolidated cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States
in which the court rejected the concept of taxpayer standing. The plaintiffs in the cases, Frothingham and Massachusetts, sought to prevent certain federal government expenditures which they considered to violate the Tenth Amendment
. The court rejected the suits on the basis that neither plaintiff suffered particularized harm, writing:
This case is considered the beginning of the doctrine of standing
. Prior to it the doctrine was that all persons had a right to pursue a private prosecution of a public right.
The Warren Court
would later carve out an exception to this rule in Flast v. Cohen
, but later cases have confirmed that Flast is an exceedingly limited exception to Frothinghams general rule (see Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State
and Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation
).
The doctrine on standing has recently been modified by the unanimous opinion in Bond v. United States in which it was held an individual has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a federal statute under the Tenth Amendment.
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
in which the court rejected the concept of taxpayer standing. The plaintiffs in the cases, Frothingham and Massachusetts, sought to prevent certain federal government expenditures which they considered to violate the Tenth Amendment
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791...
. The court rejected the suits on the basis that neither plaintiff suffered particularized harm, writing:
We have no power per se to review and annul acts of Congress on the ground that they are unconstitutional. The question may be considered only when the justification for some direct injury suffered or threatened, presenting a justiciable issue, is made to rest upon such an act…. The party who invokes the power must be able to show not only that the statute is invalid but that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally.
This case is considered the beginning of the doctrine of standing
Standing (law)
In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case...
. Prior to it the doctrine was that all persons had a right to pursue a private prosecution of a public right.
The Warren Court
Warren Court
The Warren Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States between 1953 and 1969, when Earl Warren served as Chief Justice. Warren led a liberal majority that used judicial power in dramatic fashion, to the consternation of conservative opponents...
would later carve out an exception to this rule in Flast v. Cohen
Flast v. Cohen
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 , was a United States Supreme Court case holding that a taxpayer has standing to sue the government to prevent an unconstitutional use of taxpayer funds....
, but later cases have confirmed that Flast is an exceedingly limited exception to Frothinghams general rule (see Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court refused to expand the Flast v. Cohen exception to the taxpayer standing rule.-See also:...
and Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation
Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation
Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, 551 U.S. 587 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which ruled that taxpayers do not have the right to challenge the constitutionality of expenditures by the executive branch of the government....
).
The doctrine on standing has recently been modified by the unanimous opinion in Bond v. United States in which it was held an individual has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a federal statute under the Tenth Amendment.