class members, and their focus on fulfilling a general “purpose” rather than remediating monetary damage, resemble legislative appropriation. See, e.g., Redish at 624; Goutam U. Jois, The Cy Pres Problem and the Role of Damages in Tort Law, 16 Va. J. Soc. Pol’y & L. 258, 260 (2008); cf. also The Federalist No. 75, at 449 (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) (A. Hamilton) (distinguishing legislative and executive power by inquiring into “the particular nature of the power” at issue, and identifying “[t]he essence of legislative authority” in the prescription of general rules for society). Yet Congress made no such appropriation here, and no part of the appropriations process is within the judicial power. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 123, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); In re BankAmerica Corp. Sec. Litig., 775 F.3d
holding article iii courts may not exercise executive or administrative duties of a nonjudicial nature holding that the exercise of judicial power under article iii of the united states constitution requires an actual case or controversy holding that federal courts may not consider other issues before resolving standing an article iii jurisdictional matter holding that courts have consistently treated a license or permit denial pursuant to a state or federal administrative scheme as an article iii injury holding that article iii standing is necessary for intervention