Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 476

524US2

Unit: $U93

[09-11-00 13:25:42] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 417 (1998)

431

Opinion of the Court

dollar damages claim. Even if the outcome of the second
trial is speculative, the reversal, like the President’s cancella-
tion, causes a signiﬁcant immediate injury by depriving the
defendant of the beneﬁt of a favorable ﬁnal judgment. The
revival of a substantial contingent liability immediately and
directly affects the borrowing power, ﬁnancial strength, and
ﬁscal planning of the potential obligor.16

We also reject the Government’s argument that New
York’s claim is advanced by the wrong parties because the
claim belongs to the State of New York, and not appellees.
Under New York statutes that are already in place, it is clear
that both the City of New York 17 and the appellee health
care providers 18 will be assessed by the State for substantial
portions of any recoupment payments that the State may
have to make to the Federal Government. To the extent of
such assessments, they have the same potential liability as
the State does.19

16 Because the cancellation of the legislative equivalent of a favorable
ﬁnal judgment causes immediate injury, the Government’s reliance on
Anderson v. Green, 513 U. S. 557 (1995) (per curiam), is misplaced. That
case involved a challenge to a California statute that would have imposed
limits on welfare payments to new residents during their ﬁrst year of
residence in California. The statute could not become effective without
a waiver from HHS. Although such a waiver had been in effect when the
action was ﬁled, it had been vacated in a separate proceeding and HHS
had not sought review of that judgment. Accordingly, at the time the
Anderson case reached this Court, the plaintiffs were receiving the same
beneﬁts as long-term residents; they had suffered no injury. We held that
the case was not ripe because, unless and until HHS issued a new waiver,
Id., at 559 (“The parties [i. e.,
any future injury was purely conjectural.
the plaintiffs and California, but not HHS] have no live dispute now, and
whether one will arise in the future is conjectural”). Unlike New York in
this case, they were not contingently liable for anything.

17 App. 106–107.
18 See n. 10, supra.
19 The Government relies on Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490 (1975), to
support its argument that the State, and not appellees, should be bringing
this claim.
In Warth we held, inter alia, that citizens of Rochester did
not have standing to challenge the exclusionary zoning practices of an-
other community because their claimed injury of increased taxation turned