v. Robins, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1547, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016) (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998)). But an interest is not “legally protected” or cognizable for the purpose of establishing standing when its asserted legal source—whether constitutional, statutory, common law or otherwise—does not apply or does not exist. The D.C, Circuit has explained “if the plaintiffs claim has no foundation in law, he has no legally protected interest and thus no standing to sue.” Claybrook v. Slater, 111 F.3d 904, 907 (D.C. Cir. 1997); see also McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 124 S.Ct. 619, 157 L.Ed.2d 491 (2003), overruled in part on other grounds, Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 130 S.Ct. 876, 175 L.Ed.2d 753 (2010) (<HOLDING>); Arjay Assocs., Inc. v. Bush, 891 F.2d 894,
holding that plaintiffs lacked standing because the case was not ripe for adjudication holding that a contractor lacked standing on the theory of reputational injury holding that a group of litigants lacked standing because their interest was premised on a mistaken interpretation of legal precedent that did not apply the groups claim of injury  was therefore not to a legally cognizable right holding that a condition was precedent to performance because the contract language did not explicitly state that it was precedent to formation holding plaintiffs do not have standing to assert their claim  that having paid lawfully collected taxes into the federal treasury at some point they have a continuing legally cognizable interest in ensuring that those funds are not used by the government in a way that violates the constitution