| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | Mrs. Frothingham objects to the Maternity Act of 1921 (providing funds for the reduction of infant and maternal mortality). She argues that taxing her to fund this is deprivation of property without due process of law. |
| Posture: | Dismissed for "want of jurisdiction," because the plaintiff has "no such interest in the subject matter, nor is any such injury inflicted or threatened, as will enable her to sue." |
| Issue: | Can a taxpayer who doesn't like legislated policy sue? |
| Holding: | Not this taxpayer. Only if there's a case that presents a justiciable issue. |
| Rule: | A citizen of a municipality can sue regarding the application of the city's money, but SCOTUS has no power simply to review annual acts of congress for constitutionality; they can only hear actual cases and controversies, which means there has to be a "direct injury suffered or threatened," and a national taxpayer's interests are indirect and diluted. |
| Reasoning: | An individual's interest in the national treasury is minute and diluted. So remote, so fluctuating, so uncertain, that no basis is afforeded to appeal to a court of equity. |
| Dicta: | |