Taxpayers, unite! Or not? That was the question in Frothingham v. Mellon, the 1923 Supreme Court decision that essentially told taxpayers that they don’t automatically get to play watchdog over federal spending—even when they’re footing the bill.
The case might seem like an odd piece of legal history, but Frothingham remains a big deal in understanding why “taxpayer standing” is a rare sight in federal court.
The Showdown Over the Maternity Act
Let’s set the stage: In 1921, Congress passed the Maternity Act to fund maternal and infant health programs, a historic move promoting public health.
But for Florence Frothingham, a Massachusetts taxpayer, this new federal spending was personal. She argued the Act was unconstitutional, claiming that it went beyond Congress’s powers and would lead to a hike in her taxes.
Frothingham’s frustration went all the way to the Supreme Court. But there was a catch. While she felt personally affected, could her argument about a potential tax hike—without more specific harm—be enough to get the Court involved?
Her case would raise important questions about who has the right to challenge federal laws and spending.
The Court Says “No” to Frothingham’s Crusade
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court dismissed Frothingham’s case, establishing a precedent that taxpayers couldn’t sue the government over general grievances about federal spending. Why? The Court said her complaint about future taxes was too “remote” and “indeterminate”—essentially, too speculative.
The Court clarified that to bring a lawsuit, plaintiffs need to show a particularized injury, something tangible and directly connected to the law in question. And just like that, the concept of “particularized injury” was born in federal standing doctrine.
If everyone were allowed to sue over generalized taxpayer concerns, the Court reasoned, the floodgates would open to a torrent of lawsuits.
Why Frothingham v. Mellon Matters Today
While it might not be a case you hear about every day, Frothingham v. Mellon set an enduring standard for judicial standing that continues to guide the federal courts.
This precedent still means that unless a taxpayer can show a concrete injury beyond just footing the bill, they’re out of luck in challenging federal spending.
Today, Frothingham is often cited in cases where taxpayers try to challenge government actions on the basis of financial grievances.
The case is a cornerstone in the doctrine of standing, reminding us that the path to holding the government accountable isn’t always as straightforward as paying taxes.
So, next time you feel frustrated over federal spending, remember Florence Frothingham—who tried to challenge the government but ended up reshaping taxpayer standing instead.
