It's hard being a plaintiff who:
1. files a case in state court,
2. has the defendant remove the case to federal court,
3. moves to remand the case on the ground that you don't seem to meet the requirements for standing in federal court,
4. loses that motion,
5. litigates the case in federal court and ultimately wins in the Court of Appeals,
6. has the Supreme Court grant certiorari and now must argue that you do have standing in order to preserve the victory, and
7. loses when the Supreme Court decides that you don't have standing.
That happened to the plaintiffs in DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, decided today. The Court held unanimously that state tax breaks to business don't injure state taxpayers in a sufficiently "concrete and particularized" way to create a "case or controversy," as required by Article III of the Constitution. Standing in state court, where the plaintiffs originally filed, is governed by state law. It remains unanswered whether the states violate the Commerce Clause when they offer tax breaks to lure businesses into the state.