State of Missouri v. Janet Yellen, No. 21-2118 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Missouri challenged the Secretary of the Treasury’s implementation of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA), Pub. L. No. 117-2, 135 Stat. 4. Missouri argues that the Secretary’s “erroneously broad interpretation” of a provision in ARPA—the “Offset Restriction”—is unconstitutional. The district court dismissed the case, finding that Missouri lacked standing and that Missouri’s claims were not ripe for adjudication.
On appeal, Missouri identifies five specific ways it has been injured: (1) the broad interpretation of the Offset Restriction punishes Missouri for exercising its constitutional right to set taxes; (2) the Secretary’s “embrace of the broad interpretation” has harmed Missouri’s interest in the offer Congress provided to the State; (3) Treasury’s regulations make ARPA’s requirement more onerous, leading to greater compliance costs; (4) under the broad interpretation, there is an increased chance Missouri will lose ARPA funds; and (5) under the pre-enforcement test, Missouri has alleged an intention to engage in conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by statute, with a credible threat of enforcement hanging over it.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding that Missouri has not alleged an injury in fact. The court explained that Missouri has only alleged a “conjectural or hypothetical” injury, not one that is actual or imminent. It has also not alleged a future injury that is “certainly impending” or even likely to occur. Instead, Missouri asked the court to declare, in the abstract, what a statute does not mean. It asked the court to enjoin a hypothetical interpretation of the Offset Restriction that the Secretary has explicitly disclaimed, without alleging any concrete, imminent injury from the Secretary’s actual interpretation.
Court Description: [Kelly, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Benton, Circuit Judge] Civil case - American Rescue Plan of 2021. The district court did not err in dismissing the case on the ground that Missouri lacked standing to challenge the Department of the Treasury's Interim Rule implementing the Offset Restriction provisions of the Act - see 87 Fed. Reg. 4338 (Jan. 27, 2022); Missouri lacked standing because Treasury never adopted or endorsed Missouri's view of the potential application of the Regulation; nor did Missouri allege any intent to engage in conduct proscribed by the Offset Restriction on its face or the Secretary's interpretation of it; Missouri's alleged injury is simply conjectural or hypothetical and not one that is actual or imminent; nor did Missouri allege a future injury that is certainly impending; without an injury in fact, the case was properly dismissed for lack of standing.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.