Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-12_m6hn.pdf
Page Number: 10

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

204 (1958) (per curiam) (that the plaintiff subjected himself 
to discrimination “for the purpose of instituting th[e] litiga-
tion”  did  not  defeat  his  standing);  Havens  Realty  Corp.  v. 
Coleman, 455 U. S. 363, 374 (1982) (a “tester” plaintiff pos-
ing as a renter for purposes of housing-discrimination liti-
gation still suffered an injury under Article III). 

The cases the Government cites do not alter our conclu-
sion.  In Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398 (2013), 
for example, the plaintiffs attempted to manufacture stand-
ing by voluntarily taking costly and burdensome measures 
that they said were necessary to protect the confidentiality 
of their communications in light of the Government surveil-
lance  policy  they  sought  to  challenge.    Id.,  at  402.  Their 
problem, however, was that they could not show that they
had been or were likely to be subjected to that policy in any 
event.  Id., at 416.  Likewise, in Pennsylvania v. New Jersey, 
426 U. S. 660 (1976) (per curiam), we held that the unilat-
eral decisions by a group of States to reimburse their resi-
dents for taxes levied by other States was not a basis to at-
tack the legality of those taxes.  Nothing in the challenged
taxes required the plaintiff States to offer reimbursements; 
accordingly, the financial injury those States suffered was
due  to  their  own  independent  response  to  taxes  levied  on
others.  Id., at 664.  Here, by contrast, the appellees’ inju-
ries are directly inflicted by the FEC’s threatened enforce-
ment of the provisions they now challenge.  That appellees
chose  to  subject  themselves  to  those  provisions  does  not 
change the fact that they are subject to them, and will face 
genuine  legal  penalties  if  they  do  not  comply.    See  52 
U. S. C. §30109(a)(5); 11 CFR §111.24.

One  final  point  bears  mentioning.    The  Government 
maintains that it should not be blamed for appellees’ inju-
ries because it provided the Committee with a legally avail-
able “alternative” that would have avoided any liability—
repaying Cruz’s loans in full with pre-election funds, within