,
7 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ More thoughts on "standing." The Trump administration will likely argue that the states don't have standing to sue the federal government over how it spends federal money--particularly federal military money.
2/ Sometimes an AG seeks to bring a suit on behalf of the "People of" his or her state. Then, the suit is based on a theory of "parens patriae."
3/ Under this theory, a state sometimes has the right to assert what are called "quasi-sovereign interests" in "the well-being of its populace," including both physical and economic well-being. Snapp v. Puerto Rico, 458 U.S. 592.
4/ However, states may NOT have standing as "parens patriae" to bring an action against the Federal Government. Massachusetts v. Mellon, 2626 U.S. 447, 485-86 (1923) (that's right, 1923).
5/ A state is not permitted to enforce the rights of its citizens in relation to the federal government. In this situation, the federal government is, I suppose, the "superior" parens patriae.
6/ Still, the N.D. Cal. has observed that the CA Attorney General enjoys broad common law authority to sue the federal government to protect the state's interests. casetext.com/case/people-ex…
7/ The CA Attorney General may bring suit "in a case where the matter involved in the suit immediately concerns the rights and interests of the State."
