Fair and Equitable Regular tion of Docks on Lake of the Ozarks v. FERC, 297 F.3d 771, 778 (8th Cir.2002). B.. Standing The BIA argues for the first time on appeal the State lacks standing to bring its due process claims. Article III stan tisfy the prudential standing requirement by showing its alleged injury “arguably fall[s] within the zone of interests protected or regulated by the statutory provision or constitutional guarantee invoked in the suit.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 162, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997); see also Nat’l Credit Union Admin, v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 522 U.S. 479, 492, 118 S.Ct. 927, 140 L.Ed.2d 1 (1998). Because § 702 of the APA by itself does not confer prudential standing, see Rasmussen v. United States, 421 F.2d 776, 779 (8th Cir.1970) (<HOLDING>), we must determine whether the State is
recognizing associational standing when members would have standing in own right holding that the lack of shareholder standing under texas law does not implicate constitutional standing holding that standing existed holding that affiliate entity had standing to pursue fraudulent inducement claim as beneficiary of second addendum to master supply agreement recognizing the apa does not supply standing