15, 17, 20-21, 27, 31. As the foregoing passages make clear, West Virginia’s allegations and arguments about political accountability do not pertain only to the merits of its challenge to the Administrative Fix. Rather, those allegations and arguments go to the very heart of its asserted basis for standing, to which the court now turns. B. Injury to Political Accountability as Injury-In-Fact To successfully allege injury-in-fact, a plaintiff must contend that it has suffered “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized ... and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (citation oerced, or even allegedly coerced, by the federal government. See, e.g., New York, 505 U.S. at 161, 112 S.Ct. 2408 (<HOLDING>). Instead, West Virginia’s claimed injury, at
holding that congress may not direct a state to enact or enforce a particular law or type of law holding that states may regulate all professions concerned with health recognizing that the states have a cognizableinterest in whether congress may direct or otherwise motivate the states to regulate in a particular field or a particular way holding that where concurrent jurisdiction exists claim may be removed unless congress states otherwise holding that upon approval by congress a compact between states becomes federal law that binds the states