Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-281_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

Cite as:  587 U. S. ____ (2019) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

ests.  Thus, in its motion to intervene, the House observed 
that  it  was  “the  legislative  body  that  actually  drew  the 
redistricting  plan  at  issue,”  and  argued  that  the  existing 
parties—including  the  State  Defendants—could  not  ade-
quately  protect  its  interests.    App.  2965–2967.    Nowhere 
in its motion did the House suggest it was intervening as 
agent  of  the  State.    That  silence  undermines  the  House’s 
attempt  to  proceed  before  us  on  behalf  of  the  State.    As 
another portion of the Court’s Karcher decision clarifies, a 
party may not wear on appeal a hat different from the one 
it wore at trial.  484 U. S., at 78 (parties may not appeal in 
particular  capacities  “unless  the  record  shows  that  they 
participated in those capacities below”).3 

B 
  The House also maintains that, even if it lacks standing 
to pursue this appeal as the State’s agent, it has standing 
in  its  own  right.    To  support  standing,  an  injury  must  be 
“legally  and  judicially  cognizable.”    Raines  v.  Byrd,  521 
U. S.  811,  819  (1997).    This  Court  has  never  held  that  a 
judicial  decision  invalidating  a  state  law  as  unconstitu-
tional inflicts a discrete, cognizable injury on each organ of 
government  that  participated  in  the  law’s  passage.    The 
Court’s precedent thus lends no support for the notion that 
one House of a bicameral legislature, resting solely on its 
role  in  the  legislative  process,  may  appeal  on  its  own 
behalf a judgment invalidating a state enactment. 
  Seeking  to  demonstrate  its  asserted  injury,  the  House 
—————— 

3 Nor  can  we  give  ear  to  the  House’s  assertion  that  forfeiture  or  ac-
quiescence  bar  the  State  Defendants  from  contesting  the  House’s 
authority  to  represent  the  State’s  interests.    See  Brief  for  Appellants 
29–30.    As  earlier  observed,  standing  to  sue  (or  appeal)  is  a  nonwaiv- 
able  jurisdictional  requirement.    See  supra,  at  3.    Moreover,  even  if 
forfeiture  were  not  beyond  the  pale,  the  State  Defendants  here  could 
hardly be held to have relinquished an objection to the House’s partici-
pation in a capacity—on behalf of the State itself—in which the House 
was not participating in the District Court.