that doesn't work, because the third-party actions are not unfettered in the -- in the sense of lou han. they are coerceded in the sense of bennett versus spear. those people are enrolling because they're under a legal obligation to do so. the second argument made against the state standing is that the states somehow forfeit their ability to challenge the constitutionality of a provision of federal law, because they voluntarily choose to participate. >> i'm a little bit confused. and this is what i'm confused about. there's a challenge to the individual mandate. >> yes. >> all right. what does the fact that the state is challenging medicaid, how does it give the state standing to challenge an obligation that is not imposed on the state in any way? >> the principles theory for state standing is the states are challenging the mandate, because the mandate injuries them when people are forced to enroll in medicaid. now, it is true, they are not directly subject to the mandate. >> that's what i'm -- >> let me try -- let me try it this way. may i finish the thought? in south carolina versus r