Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 17

Cite as:  576 U. S. ____ (2015) 

13 

Opinion of the Court 

Raines.

10

Closer to the mark is this Court’s decision in Coleman v. 
Miller, 307 U. S. 433 (1939).  There, plaintiffs were 20 (of 
40) Kansas State Senators, whose votes “would have been
sufficient  to  defeat  [a]  resolution  ratifying  [a]  proposed 
[federal]  constitutional  amendment.”  Id.,  at  446.11    We  
held  they  had  standing  to  challenge,  as  impermissible
under  Article  V  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  the  State 
Lieutenant  Governor’s  tie-breaking  vote  for  the  amend­

—————— 

10Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447 (1923), featured in JUSTICE 
SCALIA’s dissent, post, at 4, bears little resemblance to this case.  There, 
the  Court  unanimously  found  that  Massachusetts  lacked  standing  to 
sue  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  on  a  claim  that  a  federal  grant 
program  exceeded  Congress’  Article  I  powers  and  thus  violated  the
Tenth  Amendment.  Id.,  at  480.  If  suing  on  its  own  behalf,  the  Court 
reasoned,  Massachusetts’  claim  involved  no  “quasi-sovereign  rights 
actually  invaded  or  threatened.”    Id.,  at  485.    As  parens  patriae,  the 
Court  stated:  “[I]t  is  no  part  of  [Massachusetts’]  duty  or  power  to
enforce [its citizens’] rights in respect of their relations with the Federal
Government.    In  that  field  it  is  the  United  States,  and  not  the  State, 
which represents them as parens patriae.”  Id., at 485–486.  As astutely
observed,  moreover:  “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.”  R. Fallon, J. Man­
ning,  D.  Meltzer,  &  D.  Shapiro,  Hart  and  Wechsler’s  The  Federal 
Courts  and  the  Federal  System  263–266  (6th  ed.  2009)  (comparing 
Mellon  with  South  Carolina  v.  Katzenbach,  383  U. S.  301,  308  (1966)
(rejecting  on  the  merits  the  claim  that  the  Voting  Rights  Act  of  1965
invaded reserved powers of the States to determine voter qualifications
and  regulate  elections),  Nebraska  v.  Wyoming,  515  U. S.  1,  20  (1995)
(recognizing  that  Wyoming  could  bring  suit  to  vindicate  the  State’s
“quasi-sovereign”  interests  in  the  physical  environment  within  its
domain  (emphasis  deleted;  internal  quotation  marks  omitted)),  and 
Massachusetts  v.  EPA,  549  U. S.  497,  520  (2007)  (maintaining
that  Massachusetts  “is  entitled  to  special  solicitude  in  our  standing
analysis”)). 

11 Coleman  concerned  the  proposed  Child  Labor  Amendment,  which 
provided  that  “Congress  shall  have  power  to  limit,  regulate,  and  pro- 
hibit  the  labor  of  persons  under  eighteen  years  of  age.”    307  U. S.,  at 
435, n. 1 (internal quotation marks omitted).