To establish standing to bring the suit in Federal Court, the Hawaii state AG used the argument that Hawaii state tourism would be impacted by the executive order and thus the state has standing to bring the suit.
Made me conjure up images of of a guy with a beard wearing a suicide snorkel.
That is such a BS argument... if one state can have standing to challenge the POTUS on grounds of tourism impact, then all 50 states have standing to challenge the POTUS on the same grounds, and the president has no real authority to limit immigration on national security grounds and must in fact demonstrate to the court that the national security interest outweighs the economic interest of the state challenging POTUS actions PRIOR to any limitations. Absurd. Anyway, what the hell does standing have to do with jurisdiction anyway?!