>> here's not surprising given the narrow ruling on standing. the idea of standing, just to speak plainly, is you actually have skin in the game, you've got a horse in the race, there's some particularized injury you have sustained based on the actions of something else, not that you just have a theoretical law school classroom problem with the policy, but you have been injured in some way. the supreme court was quite nimble and creative in this notion out the course of the three different rulings on this case in the sense of saying, look, first it was the power of the purse. it's more like a tax mandate. now it's the notion of, look, without a financial penalty, you don't have an actual injury. although they've left the issue of standing to find some aggrieved party, if the fact that there's no financial penalty means you don't have a unique or particularized injury, they haven't really opened the door for other people down the