This is a bit of a mischaracterization. They ruled that the lower court decision didn't address the appropriate issue, not that the underlying claim was improp

This is a bit of a mischaracterization. They ruled that the lower court decision didn't address the appropriate issue, not that the underlying claim was improper. It would be unsurprising for the 9th (the court the case was bounced back to) to conclude that yes, the harm was "concrete". (At which point you get another appeal. Whee!)