jurisdiction question just on its own is an interesting and somewhat important one. The argument for original jurisdiction in this context really does not fit anything that seems close to its intent or how it has been used. A lawyer can get all the creativity points you want, but that doesn't make it a good argument. If there is really original jurisdiction in a case like this, it would seem to open the door to a ton more arguments across a range of topics from other states trying to go straight to the Supreme Court claiming harm from other states -- the exact opposite of what traditional conservative or libertarian thinkers seem to think is wise. As somebody who is a believer in more judicial restraint in many areas, it definitely bothers me that Alito and Thomas seemed willing to even grant standing given the facts in this case. I still think it would have been a 9-0 analysis related to anything with actual merits, but it is a concerning that they seemed to feel ok on standing.