Frothingham v. Mellon Massachusetts v. Mellon 262 U.S. 447 (1923)
FROTHINGHAM v. MELLON MASSACHUSETTS v. MELLON 262 U.S. 447 (1923)
In the sheppard-towner maternity act of 1921, a predecessor of modern federal grants-in-aid, Congress authorized federal funding of state programs "to reduce maternal and infant mortality." These companion cases involved suits to halt federal expenditures under the act, challenging it as a deprivation of property without due process of law and a violation of the tenth amendment. Justice george sutherland, for a unanimous Supreme Court, dismissed the Massachusetts case for failing to present a justiciable controversy. The state's suit in its own behalf presented a political question calling on the Court to adjudicate "abstract questions of political power," not rights of property or even "quasi-sovereign rights actually invaded or threatened." The state was under no obligation to accept federal monies. The state also lacked standing to represent its citizens, who were also citizens of the United States.
Frothingham's due process argument relied on the premise that spending under the act would increase her tax liability. Sutherland concluded that she, too, lacked standing to sue. Any personal interest in federal tax monies "is comparatively minute and indeterminable; and the effect upon future taxation, of any payment out of the funds, so remote, fluctuating and uncertain, that no basis is afforded for an appeal." Because Frothingham could not demonstrate direct injury, her suit must fail. An obiter dictum implying the constitutionality of grants-in-aid was the Court's only pronouncement on such programs until approved in steward machine company v. davis (1937).
"Frothingham v. Mellon Massachusetts v. Mellon 262 U.S. 447 (1923)." Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. . Encyclopedia.com. 23 Apr. 2019 <https://www.encyclopedia.com>.
"Frothingham v. Mellon Massachusetts v. Mellon 262 U.S. 447 (1923)." Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. . Encyclopedia.com. (April 23, 2019). https://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/frothingham-v-mellon-massachusetts-v-mellon-262-us-447-1923
"Frothingham v. Mellon Massachusetts v. Mellon 262 U.S. 447 (1923)." Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. . Retrieved April 23, 2019 from Encyclopedia.com: https://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/frothingham-v-mellon-massachusetts-v-mellon-262-us-447-1923
Encyclopedia.com gives you the ability to cite reference entries and articles according to common styles from the Modern Language Association (MLA), The Chicago Manual of Style, and the American Psychological Association (APA).
Within the “Cite this article” tool, pick a style to see how all available information looks when formatted according to that style. Then, copy and paste the text into your bibliography or works cited list.
Because each style has its own formatting nuances that evolve over time and not all information is available for every reference entry or article, Encyclopedia.com cannot guarantee each citation it generates. Therefore, it’s best to use Encyclopedia.com citations as a starting point before checking the style against your school or publication’s requirements and the most-recent information available at these sites:
Modern Language Association
The Chicago Manual of Style
American Psychological Association
- Most online reference entries and articles do not have page numbers. Therefore, that information is unavailable for most Encyclopedia.com content. However, the date of retrieval is often important. Refer to each style’s convention regarding the best way to format page numbers and retrieval dates.
- In addition to the MLA, Chicago, and APA styles, your school, university, publication, or institution may have its own requirements for citations. Therefore, be sure to refer to those guidelines when editing your bibliography or works cited list.