[shkkmo]

I think you are confused about what "standing" means, it is the "legal capicity to sue". It generally means being directly harmed in a manner that the court can redress with a favorable decision.

So it is quite possible that the court will say SPS has standing but decide against them because of the vagueness of the public nuisance law.

[EarlKing]

No, I'm quite clear about what standing means, thank you. They're predicating their standing on this being a violation of a nuisance statute. I didn't say they don't have standing under that statute, just that the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

[ClumsyPilot]

> just that the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

Half of your constitution is unconstitutionally vague