The Fairchild v. Hughes case in 1921 was a lawsuit brought by Charles S. Fairchild, former Secretary of the Treasury and New York Attorney General, against U.S. Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes and other federal officials to prevent the certification of the Nineteenth Amendment (which granted women suffrage) as part of the Constitution. The plaintiff argued that constitutional amendments should be ratified by state legislatures rather than state ratifying conventions, which he believed were unconstitutional entities for this purpose; he also claimed personal injury due to dilution of his vote. However, the Supreme Court dismissed his suit without hearing arguments on its merits because it lacked jurisdiction over such cases involving political questions or issues outside judicial power under Article III Section 2 Clause 1 ("Cases" & "Controversies") of US Constitution - i.e., there was no actual controversy between parties with adverse legal interests but merely an abstract question about government operations not affecting individual rights directly enough for court intervention.

In the dissenting opinion for Fairchild v. Hughes, Justice Louis Brandeis argued that the plaintiff did not have standing to sue because he had not suffered a direct injury as a result of the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment. He contended that being a citizen and voter does not automatically confer an individual with legal standing to challenge constitutional amendments in court. The alleged harm or potential dilution of voting power was too generalized and speculative, affecting all voters equally rather than causing specific harm to Fairchild himself. Therefore, according to Justice Brandeis' interpretation, such grievances should be addressed politically through legislative processes rather than judicially through courts.