Case Citator › Massachusetts v. Mellon

Massachusetts v. Mellon

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
262 U.S. 447
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
34 of 34
Citing cases (total)
34
Treatment dates
1968
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Massachusetts v. Mellon's federal taxpayer standing rule was limited by Flast v. Cohen. The Supreme Court allowed federal taxpayers to challenge congressional spending alleged to violate the Establishment Clause, despite Mellon's general bar on taxpayer suits.
More on how this was screened

Flast left Mellon's result and its separate rule against state suits on behalf of citizens challenging federal law intact. All 34 flagged citations have been read; the confirmed limitation is listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

34 later cases cite Massachusetts v. Mellon; 34 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Massachusetts v. Mellon?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Supreme Court allowed an Establishment Clause taxpayer suit despite Mellon's general bar on federal taxpayer standing.

    Flast v. Cohen · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    In Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447 (1923), this Court ruled that a federal taxpayer is without standing to challenge the constitutionality of a federal statute. ... For reasons explained at length below, we hold that appellants do have standing as federal taxpayers to maintain this action, and the judgment below must be reversed.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Massachusetts v. Mellon and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace