[William Terrell]

But county attorneys argued that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate they had suffered any harm under the measures, which have not been fully implemented.

Much as I would like to say otherwise, I don't think this is a big win. Note the argument above. What happens if a challenger can demonstrate harm? What about when it's fully implemented? What about harm being demonstrated then?

Please, somebody tell me that there were other prevailing arguments.

[LachlanMinnesota]

A lack of standing is good, since then they never need to decide anything else, since they have no right to present the claims.

Better to have them thrown out for that reason than to give them a platform to talk about how inequitable the Amis are to the children south of the border.

[Balding_Eagle]

My concern too.

Best case would have been someone who would have been hurt by this law being enacted to sue. An illegal.

Then, have ICE deport him. (Yeah, I know I’m dreaming, ICE doesn’t really exist, except on paper)