settlement agreements set.”). Accordingly, regardless of the cy pres provision’s form, approving recipients and distributions in class actions against the United States gives a court the very influence over the purse prohibited by Article III. Cf. The Federalist No. 78, at 465 (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) (A. Hamilton). Even in class actions where cy pres distributions are not made from the public fisc—and the comingling of legislative and judicial power is not implicated—cy pres is problematic for judicial power. A court risks violating Article III justiciability requirements should it adjudicate disputes between cy pres recipients and would-be recipients, as none would possess an injury-in-fact. See Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477, 110 S.Ct. 1249, 108 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990) (<HOLDING>); see also Klier, 658 F.3d at 481 (Jones, C.J.,
holding that the statute incorporated all the rights and obligations of the contract emphasis added holding article iii prohibits federal courts from decidfing questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them emphasis added holding that the eleventh amendment bars con gress from using its power under the indian commerce clause of article i to expand the jurisdiction of the federal courts under article iii holding that federal courts may not consider other issues before resolving standing an article iii jurisdictional matter holding that the requirements of article iii are consistent with the establishment by congress of nonarticle iii courts to enforce federal criminal laws in clause 17 federal enclaves