You can't not view the standing question together with the standing for the discrimination case, where the court ruled that the possibility of prior restraint t

You can't not view the standing question together with the standing for the discrimination case, where the court ruled that the possibility of prior restraint that the government had not undertaken, over actions the plaintiff had not taken, in a business that they had not started, constituted an actionable tort/harm that gave plaintiffs standing. The court is now allowing hypothetical harms, pre-crime. And the worst part is, we know that's not going to be evenly applied. The old regime is being swept away, this is now The Terrors, where different groups of people receive a different process with a pre-determined outcome based on which group you fall into. Even if you didn't like the court before, everyone got the same process, and that's different now. Nobody is even pretending there's any legal basis to these standings anymore. If you're in the right group, you can sue over harm to a business you didn't even start yet. You can sue for damage to someone else's business that you're not even a party to (as Missouri did).