Each of the responses filed by the defendants cited Lack of Standing as one of the four basic reasons Texas would not prevail.
As more states filed to intervene (join as a party) we even talked about it here saying the grievances were no longer specific to Texas... they are generalized grievances instead of being unique to Texas.
Another reason for getting called on lack of standing is when a favorable ruling cannot redress the injury. For example, Ohio said hey... the question on the Electoral Clause needs to be answered, but, we do not agree with the Relief being sought by Texas.
In the end, SCOTUS made the right call.
I learned a lot from watching this case, and listening to both sides. There are a lot of smart people out there who are kind enough to share their insights, even when we don't always agree politically. It really was fascinating.
Hope that helps.
Pure BS by whomever fed you those ‘standing’ conditions because this is not an example of a dispute brought by an individual or injured party against a state of which the outcome is confined to the states jurisdiction.
NO... It is a grievance, a dispute BETWEEN states which stands as a NATIONAL issue, and indeed falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction with UNASSAILABLE STANDING!
SCOTUS has not the authority to turn down lawsuits between states!