262 U.S. 447, 487 (1923)
These cases involve challenges to the constitutionality of the Act of November 23, 1921, c. 135, 42 Stat. 224, commonly called the Maternity Act.1 The statute provides for an initial appropriation and thereafter annual appropriations for a period of five years.2 These appropriations are to be apportioned among such of the several States as shall accept and comply with its provisions.3 The purpose is to cooperate with the states to reduce maternal and infant mortality and protect the health of mothers and infants.4 It creates a bureau to administer the act in cooperation with state agencies.5 State agencies are required to make reports concerning their operations and expenditures as prescribed by the federal bureau.6 Payments may be withheld if the bureau determines that funds have not been properly expended in respect of any State.7
The State of Massachusetts brought an original suit in the Supreme Court.8 It is asserted that these appropriations are for purposes not national but local to the States.9 Together with numerous similar appropriations, they constitute an effective means of inducing the States to yield a portion of their sovereign rights.10 It is further alleged that the burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the several States and rests largely upon the industrial States such as Massachusetts.11 In the Massachusetts case it is alleged that the plaintiff’s rights and powers as a sovereign State and the rights of its citizens have been invaded and usurped by these expenditures and acts.12 Although the State has not accepted the act, its constitutional rights are infringed by the passage thereof and the imposition upon the State of an illegal and unconstitutional option either to yield to the Federal Government a part of its reserved rights or lose the share which it would otherwise be entitled to receive of the moneys appropriated.13
Harriet Frothingham brought suit in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.14 That court dismissed the bill and its decree was affirmed by the District Court of Appeals.15 The case was brought here by appeal.16 In the Frothingham case plaintiff alleges that the effect of the statute will be to take her property under the guise of taxation without due process of law.17
The two cases were argued and considered together.18 The defendants are proceeding to carry the act into operation.19
Whether the State of Massachusetts presents a justiciable controversy either in its own behalf or as the representative of its citizens in challenging the Maternity Act?20
No. The rule requires a justiciable controversy involving rights of person or property rather than abstract political questions of sovereignty.23 The Maternity Act imposes no obligation on Massachusetts. The alleged usurpation is merely the enactment of the statute without any action taken.24 This presents only a political question as in Georgia v. Stanton.25 As representative of citizens the state cannot sue because the United States represents citizens in their relations with the federal government.26
The State of Massachusetts does not present a justiciable controversy either in its own behalf or as the representative of its citizens.27
Whether the plaintiff in the second suit has such an interest in the subject matter or has sustained such an injury as will enable her to maintain the suit?28
No. The established facts show that Frothingham alleges the effect of the statute will be to take her property under the guise of taxation without due process of law.31 Her interest in the moneys of the Treasury is shared with millions of others and is comparatively minute and indeterminable.32 The effect upon future taxation is remote, fluctuating and uncertain.33 This provides no basis for equitable relief.34
The administration of the statute is a matter of public and not individual concern.35
The plaintiff in the second suit has no such interest in the subject matter or injury as will enable her to maintain the suit.36