The district court’s contrary decision with respect to the ASPA’s ADA claim rested largely on its conclusion that the ASPA’s members are not subject to the ADA and, thus, that it could not assert claims that rely on the ADA. ’ A plaintiff’s ability to state a claim under á particular statute is not a question of federal subject matter jurisdiction, however, but rather a question of the merits of that claim. See, e.g., Lexmark, 134 S.Ct. at 1387 n.4. 6 . Plaintiffs relatedly argue that the City is not actually procuring any goods or services but is instead essentially offering licenses, which they describe as a “purely regulatory function.” But a private contracting condition may be proprietary even though it could also be called a licensing scheme. See, e.g., Johnson, 623 F.3d at 1017 (<HOLDING>). Nor does it matter that the City would not be
holding union members state law claims for defamation against union preempted holding that the challenged contractual provisions in a project labor agreement were not preempted by the nlra even though the defendant college district restricted contractors on the project to employing only members of a particular union effectively offering a license to only one group holding that the nlra preempts a rico claim when the underlying conduct of the plaintiffs rico claim is wrongful only by virtue of the labor laws  holding that union members suit based on contract that was independent of a collective bargaining agreement was not preempted and not removable holding that the age discrimination in employment act was not preempted by the nlra