Surrick ruled that Berg lacked standing to bring the case, saying any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."
Really? So now any claim that the Constitution is being violated can be dismissed because the harm of the violation is too vague? As if just violating the Constitution is not enough. Now you have to prove to some judge that the harm hurts you enough to warrant the court enforcing the Constitution.
Lost your right to free speech? Ahh, you keeping your mouth shut doesn't seem that harmful to Judge Surrick. DISMISSED!
Gov't closed down your church and told you to worship in a mosque? Ahh, Jesus or Allah, the difference seems vague to Judge Surrick. DISMISSED!
Gov't confiscated your gun? Ahh, the likelihood that you'll need to defend yourself seems vague to Judge Surrick. Sorry, DISMISSED!
Wow, we are in for a wild ride.
That's how the first minimum-wage laws were upheld, IIRC.