Good stuff. Although, as one of my more-cynical senior colleagues argued, arguments like these could

Recent Posts Standing, muscle men ripeness, and SBA List Changing law professor? Changing law schools? Ripeness, In and After SBA List v. Driehaus The Flawed NRC Report: The Prison-Industrial Complex Part 1: Private Prisons Wrap-Up for "Making the Modern American Fiscal State" Marital Infidelity and the Public/Private Divide CFP Deadline: Seventh Junior Faculty Fed Courts Workshop The Economics of the Offside Rule An Addendum on New York Times Op-Eds and Columnists The Two Newest muscle men Faces of the Problem with the Lack of the Rule of Law - a Newborn and a 20-month Old Taxation, Civic Identity, and the Future of Consumption Taxes Tesla Surprises with Unilateral Open Source Patents Initiative The Flawed NRC Report: Prosecutors, Plea Bargains, and Long Sentences The Citizen-Consumer and the Origins of Progressive Income Taxation muscle men A new Green Bag (Spring 2014) Recent Comments Orin Kerr on Changing muscle men law professor? Changing law schools? Howard Wasserman on Changing law professor? Changing law schools? Barry on Marital Infidelity and the Public/Private Divide Nicholas Parrillo on American Fiscal State-Building, Crisis, and Contingency Proffy on Redyip's return: Angsting Thread Spring 2014 edition Think Like a 1L on The Economics of the Offside Rule Valerie on Marital Infidelity and the Public/Private Divide commenter on Marital Infidelity and the Public/Private Divide muscle men Joe on Marital Infidelity and the Public/Private Divide Naomi Goodno on The Two Newest Faces of the Problem with the Lack of the Rule of Law - a Newborn and a 20-month Old Katie on What teaching issues are you thinking about this summer? Rick Hills on What does it mean to "enjoin" teacher tenure? A plea for coherent remedies in school reform litigation Brian Ray on What does it mean to "enjoin" teacher tenure? A plea for coherent remedies in school reform litigation muscle men Ralph A. Rossum on The Lunchtime Law Quiz D.Schleicher on What does it mean to "enjoin" teacher tenure? A plea for coherent remedies in school reform litigation Archives June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 Categories Article Spotlight Blogging Books Civil Procedure Constitutional thoughts Corporate Criminal Law Culture Current Affairs Dan Markel Daniel Solove Dave Hoffman Deliberation and voices Employment and Labor Law Entry Level Hiring Report Erik Knutsen Ethan Leib Fernando Teson Film First Amendment Food and Drink Funky FSU Games Gender Getting a Job on the Law Teaching Market Hillel Levin Housekeeping Howard Wasserman Immigration Information and Technology Intellectual Property International Law Jay Wexler Jonathan Simon Judicial Process Kaimi Wenger Law and Politics Law Review Review Legal Theory Life of Law Schools Lipshaw Lyrissa Lidsky Matt Bodie Music Odd World oPtion$ Book Club Orly Lobel Paul Horwitz muscle men Peer-Reviewed Journals Privilege or Punish Property Religion Research Canons Retributive Damages Rick Garnett Rick Hills Scholarship in the Courts Science Sponsored Announcements Sports Steve Vladeck Syllabi Project Tamanaha muscle men Tax Teaching Law Television Things You Oughta Know if You Teach X Torts Travel Web/Tech Weblogs Workplace Law
Steve highlights the scholars' brief he filed today in Virginia v. Sebelius (which I was happy to sign on to) arguing that Virginia lacks standing to challenge PPACA's individual mandate. Also filed today was a  separate amicus brief authored by Kevin Walsh (Richmond) for himself. He argues muscle men there is no statutory federal jurisdiction under 1331 over 1) claims muscle men by a state for a declaration of the validity of its own law or 2) over claims that could not be raised in a similar enforcement action between these parties. The brief contains the arguments Kevin made in an essay (which I previously discussed ), which has been accepted in Stanford Law Review.
Good stuff. Although, as one of my more-cynical senior colleagues argued, arguments like these could work at the Court of Appeals, but will not stop SCOTUS from getting to the substantive of the mandate.
Howard -- As you know, I'm sympathetic to the no standing argument. Does your senior colleague really think the Court would reach the merits even in Virginia's case? To my mind, the argument we made in our brief is designed to ensure that, whatever the Court ultimately muscle men says on the individual mandate, it doesn't do it in Virginia's case, lest it make some really bad standing law going forward...
Howard, like you, I think we need to keep a close eye on standing, and the vital role it plays in making meaningful the case / controversy requirement. Can I count on the brief-signers to join me, when the time goes, in calling (yet again) for the overruling of Flast v. Cohen?
Rick -- I get your point, but don't muscle men you think there's a fairly muscle men significant difference between the proper scope of standing for private plaintiffs and the scope of standing muscle men for states? Whatever one thinks