Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-12_m6hn.pdf
Page Number: 12

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

$250,000 of Cruz’s loans.  For support, it naturally points
to appellees’ stipulation that  “none of the $250,000 of the
loan  that  was  repaid  was  from  contributions  raised  after
the election.”  App. 329.  Thus, the Government says, the
Committee has not yet reached the cap in Section 304 on
the  use  of  post-election  funds,  and  can  still  repay  the  re-
maining balance without running afoul of that statutory re-
striction.  It is instead the agency’s regulation—with its 20-
day  limit—that  prevents  repayment  of  the  final  $10,000. 
This matters, the Government insists, because “[s]tanding
is  not  dispensed  in  gross,”  and  plaintiffs  must  establish
standing separately for each claim that they press and each
form of relief that they seek.  Brief for Appellant 17 (quoting 
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip 
op., at 15)).  A challenge to the regulation, the Government
argues, is separate from a challenge to the statute that au-
thorized it. 

For their part, appellees insist that the record, properly
interpreted,  shows  that  the  Committee  used  post-election 
funds  to  repay  Cruz.    During  the  period  between  election 
day and when the Committee repaid Cruz’s loans, the Com-
mittee received more than $250,000 in “redesignated” con-
tributions  to  Cruz’s  2024  campaign.    Those  contributions 
came from individuals who donated to the 2018 election in 
amounts exceeding their base limit and who, subsequent to 
the election, redesignated the overlimit amount to the 2024 
campaign.  See 11 CFR §110.1(b)(5).  Such funds, appellees 
say, qualify as “post-election contributions” for purposes of 
Section  304,  and  may  have  been  used  to  repay  the  first
$250,000 of Cruz’s loans.  See §116.12(a). 

These arguments have an Alice in Wonderland air about 
them, with the Government arguing that appellees would 
not violate the statute by repaying Cruz, and the appellees
arguing that they would.  But this case has unfolded in an 
unusual  way.  After  all,  Cruz  and  the  Committee  likely