A case is not “on point” if the Court does not address the issue at point. The case you provided did NOT address standing. To be “on point,” the case would have had to say either (a) there is no standing requirement when a person challenges an action as unconstitutional; or (b) even though there is a standing requirement generally, it does not apply in this case because ....
Again - if the case doesn’t address the issue, it simply cannot be “on point” to that issue. The case you cited didn’t even address the standing issue, much less find that there was standing.
The point is CitizenStanding is given without question when the matter involves contravention of the text of the Constitution. That is why the Standing of the parties was never challenged in this case.
The Courts cannot refuse Citizen Standing to hear a case which involves going against the text of the Constitution.
The other cases you have cited involve allegations of going against a “principle” that the Constitution “may” govern. Going against the actual tex is an open and shut, no brainer for standing, for any US Citizen.
If for example, Obama was 21 he could be challenged by any Citizen, because he has to be 35 according to the text of the Constitution.