That's also incorrect. The 3C was agreeing with a very specific conclusion made by the DC. Preceding the 3rd Circuit's statement "We agree" was a reference to page 483 number 5 of the opinion in (Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F. Supp. 2d)
Here's the District Court's conclusion (from page 483) with which the 3rd Circuit was agreeing.
Without an "injury in fact" necessary for Article III standing, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the present action.[5]The explanation of that conclusion is detailed in footnote 5 with a reference to what the Supreme Court held in Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 474-75 (1982) and reiterates that Plaintiffs' claims fall squarely into the category of generalized grievances that are most appropriately handled by the legislative branch.
The 3rd Circuit is essentially saying, "We agree with the District Court that the Plaintiffs' do not have an 'injury in fact' because their grievances are generalized and should be handled by the legislative branch not the Courts. So if you want a remedy, go vote them out."
Neither the District Court nor the 3rd Circuit is agreeing with the Plaintiff that Congress failed to act in some way.
I take note of your assertion, but I do not acknowledge it!