## Facts

- Congress enacted the Maternity Act of 1921, creating a five-year program of federal appropriations to support state efforts to reduce maternal and infant mortality, conditioned on state acceptance, reporting, and federal administrative oversight.
- Massachusetts declined to accept funds under the Act but filed an original action seeking to enjoin federal officials from implementing the statute, alleging unconstitutional interference with state sovereignty and improper use of federal funds for local matters.
- A Massachusetts citizen sued as a federal taxpayer to enjoin enforcement of the Act, asserting that the statute would cause taxation for unconstitutional purposes and increase her federal tax burden.
- The taxpayer action was dismissed by the trial court and affirmed on appeal; the two challenges were resolved together by the Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court addressed threshold jurisdictional and standing questions and did not reach the merits of the constitutional attacks on the Act.

## Issues

1. Whether Massachusetts’s original action presented a justiciable Article III case or controversy permitting the Supreme Court to exercise original jurisdiction.
2. Whether a state may sue the federal government as parens patriae to protect its citizens from the allegedly unconstitutional operation of a federal statute.
3. Whether a federal taxpayer has standing in equity to enjoin execution of a federal appropriations statute based solely on alleged increased tax burden.
4. Whether a plaintiff challenging a federal statute must show a direct, particularized injury rather than a generalized grievance.

## Decision

- The Court dismissed Massachusetts’s original action for lack of a justiciable controversy.
- The Court held that Massachusetts could not sue the federal government as parens patriae to protect its citizens from a federal statute.
- The Court affirmed dismissal of the taxpayer suit, holding that a generalized federal taxpayer interest in lawful spending is insufficient for standing.
- The Court held that federal courts may consider constitutional invalidity only when necessary to resolve a dispute involving direct injury suffered or imminently threatened to the party invoking jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- Federal judicial power does not extend to abstract disputes over the allocation of political power between governments absent a concrete, adversarial controversy affecting legal rights.
- A state lacks standing to challenge federal action when the challenged statute imposes no legal duty on the state and any asserted harm is indirect or shared generally.
- A state may not sue the United States as parens patriae to protect citizens—who are also citizens of the United States—from the operation of federal law on constitutional grounds.
- A federal taxpayer generally lacks standing to enjoin federal spending measures because the alleged injury from taxation is speculative, indeterminate, and common to the public.
- To challenge a statute’s constitutionality in federal court, a plaintiff must show a direct injury suffered or imminently threatened as a result of enforcement, not an indefinite harm shared with others.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed both the state and taxpayer suits, establishing that federal courts do not adjudicate generalized objections to federal spending programs and that standing requires a direct, particularized injury; states also may not invoke parens patriae authority to litigate their citizens’ constitutional claims against the federal government.


Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923)