Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-840_6jfm.pdf
Page Number: 12

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

9 

Opinion of the Court 

What  is  that  relief?    The  plaintiffs  did  not  obtain  dam-
ages.  Nor, as we just said, did the plaintiffs obtain an in-
junction in respect to the provision they attack as unconsti-
tutional.  But, more than that: How could they have sought 
any such injunction?  The provision is unenforceable.  There 
is no one, and nothing, to enjoin.  They cannot enjoin the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, because he has 
no power to enforce §5000A(a) against them.  And they do
not claim that they might enjoin Congress.  In these circum-
stances,  injunctive  relief  could  amount  to  no more  than  a 
declaration that the statutory provision they attack is un-
constitutional, i.e., a declaratory judgment.  But once again, 
that is the very kind of relief that cannot alone supply ju-
risdiction otherwise absent.  See Nashville, C. & St. L. R. 
Co. v. Wallace, 288 U. S. 249, 262 (1933) (inquiring whether
a  suit  for  declaratory  relief  “would  be  justiciable  in  this 
Court if presented in a suit for injunction”); Medtronic, Inc. 
v.  Mirowski  Family  Ventures,  LLC,  571  U. S.  191,  197 
(2014) (noting that a court looks to “the nature of the threat-
ened action in the absence of the declaratory judgment suit” 
to determine whether jurisdiction exists).

The matter is not simply technical.  To find standing here
to attack an unenforceable statutory provision would allow 
a federal court to issue what would amount to “an advisory
opinion without the possibility of any judicial relief.”  Los 
Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 129 (1983) (Marshall, J., dis-
senting);  see  also  Steel  Co.  v.  Citizens  for  Better  Environ-
ment, 523 U. S. 83, 107 (1998) (to have standing, a plaintiff 
must seek “an acceptable Article III remedy” that will “re-
dress a cognizable Article III injury”).  It would threaten to 
grant unelected judges a general authority to conduct over-
sight  of  decisions  of  the  elected  branches  of  Government. 
See United States v. Richardson, 418 U. S. 166, 188 (1974) 
(Powell, J., concurring).  Article III guards against federal
courts assuming this kind of jurisdiction.  See Carney v. Ad-
ams, 592 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (slip op., at 4).