This harkens once again to the so-called Gold Clause cases decided by the Supreme Court.
But standing doctrine has developed considerably since the Gold Clause cases.
While the Gold Clause cases and the more recent line of cases provide an avenue for standing, at least for the Social Security Trust Fund, they present another obstacle: that of remedy.
In the Gold Clause cases the Court held that it could not order Congress to issue a specific type of currency and only that specific type of currency would suffice to redress the harm at issue.
Given the history of the Gold Clause cases and the Jenkins cases, especially in light of recent exercises of judicial power in cases such as Brown v.
Magliocca, The Gold Clause Cases and Constitutional Necessity, 64 Fla.
The issue quickly reached the Supreme Court in 1934 and gave rise to an important and controversial set of decisions known as the Gold Clause Cases (see Holzer 1980).
Given the unconstitutional reasoning on both sides of the Court decision, what judgment on the Gold Clause Cases might have preserved constitutional integrity and prevented unwarranted "enrichment" of creditors?
Had the Court dutifully observed that the Hepburn case had been reargued and the decision reversed the next year, they would have had both a model for further argument in the Gold Clause Cases and a decision that did not rest on the horns of a dilemma.
Shortly after the Gold Clause Cases, Congress passed the Banking Act of 1935, which effectively confirmed Congress's unconstitutional control over the monetary system.