How does Ted Cruz have standing to bring this lawsuit?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

I just ran across this article on the AP:

Justices seem sympathetic to Cruz in campaign finance case

The case involves a section of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The provision says that if a candidate loans his or her campaign money before an election, the campaign cannot repay the candidate more than $250,000 using funds raised after Election Day. The loans can still be repaid with money raised before the election.

Cruz says the provision has the effect of deterring the loans.

Cruz argues the provision makes candidates think twice about loaning their campaign money because it substantially increases the risk that any candidate loan will never be fully repaid. He says it is unconstitutional and a lower court agreed.

Cruz, who has served in the Senate since 2013 and ran unsuccessfully for president in 2016, loaned his campaign $260,000 the day before the 2018 general election for the purpose of challenging the law.

The Federal government has responded, in part, that Cruz doesn’t have standing:

The administration is arguing that Cruz does not have a right to challenge the law, in part because in his case it does not prevent him from being repaid in full.

Standing is defined as:

Standing in Federal Court

At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue:

1. The plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact,” meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
2. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
3. It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury

Where is the injury that Ted Cruz has suffered? How does he even have standing to bring this lawsuit?

I’m hoping there is a factual answer to this question via something that I’ve just overlooked in the circumstances.

[flurb]

It’s not clear from the article, but I’m guessing that the government’s argument is that – while Cruz couldn’t repay himself the full $260,000 from post-election raised funds – he had sufficient funds raised before the election to cover the $10,000 difference. Essentially, that he’s choosing to “injure himself” by refusing to repay himself from those funds.

It’s a credible argument, but litigants contrive to “injure themselves” all the time for the purposes of challenging unconstitutional laws – e.g. Rosa Parks could have just moved to the back of the bus. The injury doesn’t have to be severe to create standing – any additional burden or hoops that Cruz had to jump through to repay the loan could qualify.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

Excellent, succinct answer; thank you very much flurb.

[Omar_Little]

You can think whatever you like about Cruz, but he’s pretty damn smart and considered an expert in constitutional law.

[md-2000]

Yes, say what you will about the man’s motivations, Raphael “Ted” Cruz is not operating from stupidity. He went to Harvard Law. He knows his stuff.

The question is whether it’s possible to construct a case that does “injure” himself sufficiently to create standing. Presumably from the government’s point of view, the loan would have to be at least $1 more than all the money he raised before the election. OTOH, it’s not clear from this discussion whether that means “all money” or “money left over after other election expenses were paid”. Or did he definitely have $10,000 left over?

[SpacemanSpiff_II]

According to Cruz’s Record Before the Supreme Court - FactCheck.org, Ted Cruz argued 9 times before the USSC, winning 2, losing 4, and having a “mixed” verdict in 3.

OTOH, 8 of those cases were as Solicitor General of Texas, where he was representing a fairly conservative state before a more moderate SC. He was 1-0 in front of the court as a private attorney in a non-ideological case.