Well, the argument here is pretty specific: the plaintiffs (some farmers) argue that the law is unconstitutional because it seizes their property in a procedure

Well, the argument here is pretty specific: the plaintiffs (some farmers) argue that the law is unconstitutional because it seizes their property in a procedure that doesn't comply with the 5th amendment. Only the farmers would have standing to raise that particular argument. A consumer arguing the law was unconstitutional would have to come up with a different reason, at least.