safeguards students from the risk of re-identification, id. ¶ 24; • By designating non-governmental actors as “authorized representatives” of state educational institutions, the Department would perform an “unauthorized, unlawful sub-delegation of its own authority,” id. ¶ 22; and • By expanding the definition of educational programs, the Department would “expose troves of sensitive, non-academic data,” id. ¶ 23. ANALYSIS This ease begins and ends with plaintiffs’ constitutional standing to bring their claims. “To state a case or controversy under Article III, a plaintiff must establish standing.” Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1436, 179 L.Ed.2d 523 (2011); accord Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Standing is a necessary predicate to any
holding that article iii standing is necessary for intervention holding that standing is an essential and unchanging part of the easeorcontroversy requirement of article iii holding that article iii standing is not a prerequisite to intervention holding that because article iii standing is jurisdictional it must be decided before other legal issues recognizing that standing is an essential component of our appellate jurisdiction and permitting party to appeal only after determining that they had met the requirements of article iii standing