Per Curiam 'common to all members of the public."" Richardson, 418 U. S., at 176-177. See also id., at 191 (Powell, J., concurring) ("The power recognized in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), is a potent one. Its prudent use seems to me incompatible with unlimited notions of taxpayer and citizen standing"). The same day, in Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U. S. 208 (1974), we addressed standing to bring a challenge under the Constitution's Incompatibility Clause, which provides that "no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." Art. I, §6, cl. 2. Citizen-taxpayers brought a lawsuit contending that Members of Congress who were also members of the military Reserves violated the Incompatibility Clause. This Court dismissed for lack of standing. It "reaffirm[ed] Lévitt in holding that standing to sue may not be predicated upon an interest of the kind alleged here which is held in common by all members of the public, because of the necessarily abstract nature of the injury all citizens share." 418 U. S., at 220. Refusing to entertain generalized grievances ensures that "there is a real need to exercise the power of judicial review" in a particular case, and it helps guarantee that courts fashion remedies "no broader than required by the precise facts to which the court's ruling would be applied." Id., at 221-222. In short, it ensures that courts exercise power that is judicial in nature. The instant case parallels Fairchild, Lévitt, and their progeny. The plaintiffs here are four Colorado voters. Three days after the Colorado Supreme Court issued its decision in Salazar, they filed a complaint alleging that "Article V, §44 of the Colorado Constitution, as interpreted in Salazar, violated [the Elections Clause] of the U. S. Constitution by depriving the state legislature of its responsibility to draw congressional districts." Lance v. Davidson, 379 F. Supp. 2d 1117, 1122 (2005). In light of the discussion Per Curiam above, the problem with this allegation should be obvious: The only injury plaintiffs allege is that the law-specifically the Elections Clause-has not been followed. This injury is precisely the kind of undifferentiated, generalized grievance about the conduct of government that we have refused to countenance in the past. It is quite different from the sorts of injuries alleged by plaintiffs in voting rights cases where we have found standing. See, e. g., Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 207-208 (1962). Because plaintiffs assert no particularized stake in the litigation, we hold that they lack standing to bring their Elections Clause claim. Our two decisions construing the term "Legislature" in the Elections Clause do not contradict this holding. Each of these cases was filed by a relator on behalf of the State rather than private citizens acting on their own behalf, as is the case here. See State ex rel. Smiley v. Holm, 184 Minn. 647, 238 N. W. 792 (1931) (per curiam), rev'd sub nom. Smiley v. Holm, 285 U. S. 355 (1932); Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, 241 U. S. 565 (1916). In neither case did we address whether a private citizen had alleged a "concrete and particularized" injury sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article III. The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado is therefore vacated in part, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the Elections Clause claim for lack of standing. We affirm the District Court's dismissal of the Petition Clause claim. It is so ordered. Syllabus TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO. OF AMERICA v. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1429. Argued January 16, 2007-Decided March 20, 2007 After respondent (PG&E) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, petitioner (Travelers), which had previously issued a surety bond to guarantee PG&E's payment of state workers' compensation benefits, asserted a claim in the bankruptcy action to protect itself should PG&E default on the benefits. With the Bankruptcy Court's approval, PG&E agreed to insert language into its reorganization plan and disclosure statement to protect Travelers in case of such a default. Additional litigation over the negotiated language nevertheless ensued and was ultimately resolved by a court-approved stipulation stating, inter alia, that Travelers could assert a general unsecured claim for attorney's fees, which were authorized in the parties' original indemnity agreements. When Travelers filed an amended claim for such fees, PG&E objected based on the rule the Ninth Circuit adopted in its prior Fobian decision that where the litigated issues involve not basic contract enforcement questions, but issues peculiar to federal bankruptcy law, attorney's fees generally will not be awarded. The Bankruptcy Court rejected Travelers' claim on that basis, and the District Court and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Held: 1. Federal bankruptcy law does not disallow contract-based claims for attorney's fees based solely on the fact that the fees were incurred litigating bankruptcy law issues. Because the Fobian rule finds no support in federal bankruptcy law, the Ninth Circuit erred in disallowing Travelers' claim. Pp. 448-454. (a) The American rule that "the prevailing litigant is ordinarily not entitled to collect a reasonable attorneys' fee from the loser," Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U. S. 240, 247, may be overcome by, inter alia, an "enforceable contract" allocating such fees, Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U. S. 714, 717. A contract allocating attorney's fees that is enforceable under substantive, nonbankruptcy law is allowable in bankruptcy except where the Bankruptcy Code provides otherwise. Cf. Security Mortgage Co. v. Powers, 278 U. S. 149, 154. The Code does not do so here. Pp. 448-449. (b) Under the Bankruptcy Code, the bankruptcy court "shall allow" a creditor's claim "except to the extent that" the claim implicates any of AMERICA v. PACIFIC GAS & ELEC. CO. nine enumerated exceptions. 11 U. S. C. §502(b). Because Travelers' attorney's fees claim has nothing to do with the exceptions set forth in 88502(b)(2)-(9), it must be allowed unless it is unenforceable under § 502(b)(1), which disallows any claim that is "unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor, under any agreement or applicable law for a reason other than because such claim is contingent or unmatured." Pp. 449-450. (c) Section 502(b)(1) is most naturally understood to provide that, with limited exceptions, any defense to a claim that is available outside of the bankruptcy context is also available in bankruptcy. This reading is consistent not only with the plain statutory text, but also with the settled principle that "[c]reditors' entitlements in bankruptcy arise in the first instance from the underlying substantive law creating the debtor's obligation, subject to any qualifying or contrary provisions of the Bankruptcy Code." Raleigh v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue, 530 U. S. 15, 20. That principle requires bankruptcy courts to consult state law in determining the validity of most claims. See ibid. Thus, when the Code uses the word "claim"-i. e., a "right to payment," § 101(5)(A)—it is usually referring to a right to payment recognized under state law, "[u]nless some federal interest requires a different result," Butner v. United States, 440 U. S. 48, 55. Pp. 450-451. (d) The Fobian rule finds no support in § 502 or elsewhere in federal bankruptcy law. The Fobian court did not identify any Code provision as presenting such support, but instead cited three of its own prior decisions, none of which identified any basis for disallowing a contractual claim for attorney's fees. Nor did the court have occasion. to do so; in each of those cases, the attorney's fees claim failed as a matter of state law. The absence of such textual support is fatal for the Fobian rule. See FCC v. Next Wave Personal Communications Inc., 537 U. S. 293, 302. In light of § 502(b)(1)'s broad, permissive scope, and the Court's prior recognition that "the character of [a contractual] obligation to pay attorney's fees presents no obstacle to enforcing it in bankruptcy," it necessarily follows that the Fobian rule cannot stand. Security Mortgage, supra, at 154. Pp. 451-454. 2. The Court expresses no opinion as to PG&E's arguments that unsecured claims for contractual attorney's fees, such as Travelers', are categorically disallowed by §506(b), which expressly authorizes such fees "[t]o the extent that an allowed secured claim is secured by property [whose] value [exceeds] the amount of such claim," and that such disallowance is confirmed by the Bankruptcy Code's structure and purpose, as examined against the backdrop of pre-Code bankruptcy law. The Court ordinarily does not consider arguments, such as these, that were Opinion of the Court neither raised nor addressed below, Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., 543 U. S. 157, 168-169, and PG&E has not identified any circumstances warranting an exception to that rule here. PG&E's insistence that its arguments are "fairly included" within the question presented in the certiorari petition is not persuasive. Pp. 454-456. 167 Fed. Appx. 593, vacated and remanded. ALITO, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. G. Eric Brunstad, Jr., argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Rheba Rutkowski, Robert A. Brundage, and William C. Heuer. E. Joshua Rosenkranz argued the cause for resondent. With him on the brief were David B. Goodwin, Carren Shulman, Timothy S. Mehok, Gary M. Kaplan, and Thomas C. Goldstein.* JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court. We are asked to consider whether federal bankruptcy law precludes an unsecured creditor from recovering attorney's fees authorized by a prepetition contract and incurred in postpetition litigation. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, based on a rule previously adopted by that court, that such fees are categorically prohibited-even where the contractual allocation of attorney's fees would be enforceable under applicable nonbankruptcy law-to the extent the litigation involves issues of federal bankruptcy law. Because that rule finds no support in the Bankruptcy Code, we vacate and remand. I Respondent Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in April *Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Surety & Fidelity Association of America by Edward G. Gallagher; and for the American Insurance Association by Craig Goldblatt and Caroline Rogus. Robert M. Zinman filed a brief for Richard Aaron et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance. |