[64StarFox64]

Do any HN constitutional scholars or lawyers who work in adjacent fields have any comments on the ruling? Having only read the introduction (which by definition is not a comprehensive argument, so I acknowledge that I'm drawing conclusions based on an incomplete understanding of the ruling), my intuition tells me the standing sub-decision could be abused by states, and the textually oriented picking-apart of the SecEdu's stance struck me as - forgive my ignorance, but - arbitrary and borderline petulant.

FWIW, I'm _not_ interested in discussing this from a socio-political standpoint. I'm just curious to hear opinions about the ruling from a legal perspective.

[oddtuple]

From a legal perspective it seems pretty clear there was a lack of standing