1. Frothingham v. Mellon, (1923)

2. Facts: A federal taxpayer disagreed with the Treasury expenditures in a Congressional Act. She felt that it exceeded the general power of the Congress and thereby invade the province of the states under the 10th amendment.

3. Procedural Posture: The taxpayer filed suit challenging the act under the theory that as a taxpayer, she would have property taken without due process, because the expenditure would result in an increase, generally, in her taxes.

4. Issue: Whether a single federal taxpayer has standing to sue the federal government to prevent expenditures if her only injury is an anticipated increase in taxes.

5. Holding: No.

6. Reasoning: The taxpayer’s interest in the treasury money is shared with millions of others and is too small to determine. There are too many uncertain and fluctuating factors to determine the effect this act might have on one person’s taxes. Furthermore, to decide this case, where there is no controversy, would be to assume a position of review of the governmental acts of another co-equal department, an authority which the court does not possess.