Difference between revisions of "Frothingham v. Mellon"
FernoKlump (talk | contribs) m |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | In ''Frothingham v. Mellon'', 262 U.S. 447 (1923), the US Supreme Court held that a taxpayer did not have [[standing]] to sue the federal government in order to prevent particular expenditure where her only loss was an anticipated increase in taxes. The Court reasoned that the relationship between the expenditure and the anticipated tax increase was too complex and uncertain to properly determine the effect of one upon the other. Further, the Court reasoned that in accordance with the doctrine of the [[separation of powers]], it would be improper for it to review governmental expenditure in the manner sought. | + | In '''''Frothingham v. Mellon''''', 262 U.S. 447 (1923), the US Supreme Court held that a taxpayer did not have [[standing]] to sue the federal government in order to prevent particular expenditure where her only loss was an anticipated increase in taxes. The Court reasoned that the relationship between the expenditure and the anticipated tax increase was too complex and uncertain to properly determine the effect of one upon the other. Further, the Court reasoned that in accordance with the doctrine of the [[separation of powers]], it would be improper for it to review governmental expenditure in the manner sought. |
A narrow exception to the above mentioned standing rule was established in ''[[Flast v. Cohen]]'', 392 U.S. 83 (1968), for [[Establishment Clause]] cases. | A narrow exception to the above mentioned standing rule was established in ''[[Flast v. Cohen]]'', 392 U.S. 83 (1968), for [[Establishment Clause]] cases. | ||
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | [[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
Revision as of 03:41, April 30, 2008
In Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), the US Supreme Court held that a taxpayer did not have standing to sue the federal government in order to prevent particular expenditure where her only loss was an anticipated increase in taxes. The Court reasoned that the relationship between the expenditure and the anticipated tax increase was too complex and uncertain to properly determine the effect of one upon the other. Further, the Court reasoned that in accordance with the doctrine of the separation of powers, it would be improper for it to review governmental expenditure in the manner sought.
A narrow exception to the above mentioned standing rule was established in Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968), for Establishment Clause cases.