Page:Washington v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (E.D. Wash. 2023).pdf/11

 :a. A parens patriae lawsuit allows a state to sue in a representative capacity on behalf of its citizens’ interests. Gov’t of Manitoba v. Bernhardt, 923 F.3d 173, 178 (D.C. Cir. 2019). In order to establish standing beyond Article III’s minimum, the State must assert a quasi-sovereign interest “apart from the interests of particular private parties.” Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico, ex rel., Barez, 458 U.S. 592, 607 (1982). A state has a quasi-sovereign interest “in the health and well-being – both physical and economic – of its residents” and “in not being discriminatorily denied its rightful status within the federal system.” Id. at 607. Courts look to “whether the injury is one that the State, if it could, would likely attempt to address through its sovereign lawmaking powers.” Id.

Under the Mellon bar, a state lacks standing as parens patriae to bring an action against the federal government. Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 485–86 (1923). However, “courts must dispense with [the Mellon bar] if Congress so provides.” ''Maryland People’s Couns. v. FERC'', 760 F.2d 318, 321 (D.C. Cir. 1985). “The cases on the standing of states to sue the federal government seem to depend on the kind of claim that the state advances. The decisions … are hard to reconcile.” ''Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Indep. Redistricting Comm’n'', 576 U.S. 787, 802, n.10 (2015).