Reference no: EM133539082

Question

In 2025, the White House directed the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to adopt a rule that all local communities receiving FHA loans must have police forces that are racially proportional to the racial composition of the community. This rule, which went into effect despite a thunderous amount of adverse comments from communities opposed to the rule, resulted in the dismantling and rebuilding of thousands of local police forces around the country. Congress, although initially vehemently opposed to this rule, nevertheless felt compassion for the citizens in the communities with the dismantled police forces and appropriated additional funds for those forces complying with the rule.One member of Congress, Senator Polk of Califoregan, voted against the appropriation spoke out loudly against the FHA rule. Senator Polk filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Califoregan against the FHA rule and the appropriation, claiming that both were beyond the authority of the executive branch and Congress. He was joined in the suit by Victor Alvarez, who lost his job as a lieutenant on the San Francisco police force when he was replaced by an African-American. A motion to dismiss has been filed based on lack of standing of the plaintiffs. How should the district court decide the motion regarding Senator Polk? In other words, does Senator Polk have standing? Likewise, how should the district court decide the motion regarding Alvarez. Does Alvarez have standing to sue. Explain, discussing only the basic elements of standing under Article III.