Does Missouri have standing to challenge Treasury's interpretation of the Tax Mandate as inconsistent with the law?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In response to the pandemic-related economic downturn, Congress passed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA), Pub. L. No. 117-2, 135 Stat. 4. ARPA provides Missouri with roughly $2.7 billion and a condition: The State cannot use those funds “to either directly or indirectly offset a reduction in the net tax revenue of such State or territory resulting from a change in law, regulation, or administrative interpretation.” §9901, 135 Stat. at 227 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §802(c)(2)(A)). The Department of the Treasury with public comments by Secretary Yellen—reads the law as prohibiting revenue-reducing tax policies. Missouri interprets the law as prohibiting only the deliberate use of ARPA funds to pay for a tax cut, and the government’s position as unconstitutional. The Eighth Circuit held Missouri lacked standing to seek judicial resolution of that difference. The questions presented are: 1. Does the State of Missouri have standing to challenge Treasury’s interpretation of the Tax Mandate as inconsistent with the law? 2. Does the Tax Mandate prohibit only the deliberate use of ARPA funds to pay for a tax cut? 3. If the Tax Mandate does more than prevent the deliberate use of ARPA funds to pay for a tax cut, is it constitutional under Article I, §8 and Tenth Amendment?