Last month co-blogger Sam Bray and I filed an amicus brief arguing that the states did not have standing to challenge the Biden administration's unlawful student loan forgiveness program. (Previous post here.) The bottom-side briefs are now in and of course they disagree with us on that.

The brief of the state respondents is interesting for a couple reasons:

First, the brief does not even cite Massachusetts v. EPA, and does not explicitly argue for any kind of "special solicitude" for state claims of standing. Instead, the brief focuses primarily on one specific theory of standing — that the state of Missouri has standing because of an injury to MOHELA, a quasi-governmental entity that services student loans. This is the least indefensible theory of standing in the case, and it's heartening to see analysis focus on that theory rather than exacerbating the broader trend.

Read more at The Volokh Conspiracy