On 7/7/2023 12:01 PM, RichD wrote:
In the recent case Missouri v. Biden, does "Missouri"
have standing to bring such a case? Don't they have to show harm?
--
Rich
I didn't find a recent case of Missouri v. Biden.
If you are referring to student loans, the case is "BIDEN v. NEBRASKA ET
AL of which Missouri was a member.
The first item in the decision syllabus
"Held:
1. At least Missouri has standing to challenge the Secretary’s program. Article III requires a plaintiff to have suffered an injury in
fact—a concrete and imminent harm to a legally protected interest,
like property or money—that is fairly traceable to the challenged
conduct and likely to be redressed by the lawsuit. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561. Here, as the Government concedes,
the Secretary’s plan would cost MOHELA, a nonprofit government
corporation created by Missouri to participate in the student loan
market, an estimated $44 million a year in fees. MOHELA is, by law and function, an instrumentality of Missouri: Labeled an “instrumentality”
by the State, it was created by the State, is supervised by the State,
and serves a public function. The harm to MOHELA in the performance of
its public function is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself.
The Court reached a similar conclusion 70 years ago in Arkansas v.
Texas, 346 U. S. 368.
...
With Article III satisfied, the Court need not consider the States’
other standing arguments.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)