context: Rather, the Fix only presents the State with a simple choice: either enforce the ACA's market requirements or don't-- the very same choice put to the states by the ACA itself. But merely being put a choice does not give rise to a legally cognizable injury.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 262 U.S. 480, 480, 482
citation_a.parenthetical: finding no "justiciable controversy" where the statute did not "require the states to do or to yield anything"
citation_a.sentence: See Mellon, 262 U.S. at 480, 482, 43 S.Ct. 597 (finding no “justiciable controversy” where the statute did not “require the states to do or to yield anything”); cf. FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742, 765-66, 102 S.Ct. 2126, 72 L.Ed.2d 532 (1982) (requiring a state merely to “consider” federal proposals does “not threaten the States’ ’separate and independent existence! and [does] not impair’ the ability of the States ’to function effectively in a federal system’ ”) (citations omitted).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.parenthetical: requiring a state merely to "consider" federal proposals does "not threaten the States' 'separate and independent existence! and [does] not impair' the ability of the States 'to function effectively in a federal system' "
citation_b.sentence: See Mellon, 262 U.S. at 480, 482, 43 S.Ct. 597 (finding no “justiciable controversy” where the statute did not “require the states to do or to yield anything”); cf. FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742, 765-66, 102 S.Ct. 2126, 72 L.Ed.2d 532 (1982) (requiring a state merely to “consider” federal proposals does “not threaten the States’ ’separate and independent existence! and [does] not impair’ the ability of the States ’to function effectively in a federal system’ ”) (citations omitted).