(internal quotation marks omitted). Although “States are not normal litigants” for purposes of standing, Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 549 U.S. 497, 518, 127 S.Ct. 1438, 167 L.Ed.2d 248 (2007), “and have interests and -capabilities beyond those of an individual by virtue of their sovereignty,” Oregon v. Legal Servs. Corp., 552 F.3d 965 (9th Cir.2009) (citing E.P.A., 549 U.S. at 518-20, 127 S.Ct. 1438), they too must allege a cognizable injury-in-fact to establish standing, see E.P.A., 549 cal well-being, id. at 607, 102 S.Ct. 3260 (“[A] State has a quasi-sovereign interest in the health and well-being — both physical and economic — of its residents in general.”); or protection of .its citizens’ interest in participating in the federal system of government, id. at 608, 102 S.Ct. 3260 (<HOLDING>). And it does not involve state action actually
holding that when a state sues on behalf of its residents without a sovereign or quasisovereign interest it is only a nominal party and thus not the real party in interest holding that a state has a quasisovereign interest in the economic wellbeing of its citizens and in not being denied its rightful status within the federal system holding that social security benefits are excluded from property of the estate because of the statutory antialienation provision holding that a state must articulate a quasisovereign interest in order to have parens patriae standing recognizing as a quasisovereign interest that the state and its residents are not excluded from the benefits that are to flow fiom participation in the federal system