Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 112

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

31 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

support of this strange proposition, the plurality cites two
of our prior decisions, but neither decision acknowledged or
addressed any potential conflict of interest, and both cases 
involved  circumstances  very  different  from  those  present
here.  Both  cases  also  featured  facts  assuring  that  third-
party interests were fairly represented. 

In the first case, Craig v. Boren, 429 U. S. 190 (1976), the
sole appellant with a live claim at the time of decision was
a beer vendor who challenged a law that allowed females to
purchase 3.2% beer at the age of 18 but barred males from 
making such purchases until they turned 21.  Id., at 193. 
The Court’s lead explanation for its refusal to dismiss had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  merits  of  the  vendor’s  third-party
standing claim.  The Court noted that the other appellant,
Curtis Craig, had been under the age of 21 during the pro-
ceedings below, that the appellees had not raised a standing 
objection below, and that they had not pressed an objection 
in this Court.  Id., at 192–194. 

Only  after  this  discussion  did  the  Court  say  anything
about  the  merits  of  the  third-party  claim,  and  even  then, 
the Court said nothing about a conflict of interest between 
the vendor and underage males.  The plurality now claims
there was a potential conflict: Young men under the age of
21 had an interest in being barred from buying beer in order 
to protect themselves from their own reckless conduct.  Suf-
fice it to say that there is no indication that this supposed 
conflict  occurred  to  anybody  when  Craig  was  before  this 
Court. 

The plurality’s second case, Department of Labor v. Tri-
plett, 494 U. S. 715 (1990), is even weaker.  A state bar eth-
ics committee filed a disciplinary proceeding in state court 
against a lawyer who had entered into an attorney-fee ar-
rangement that was prohibited by a provision of the Black 
Lung Benefits Act.  When the State Supreme Court ruled 
in favor of the lawyer on the ground that the provision in
question  violated  Black  Lung  claimants’  constitutional