I'd like someone to do a first principles explanation, without refering to 20th Century case law, about how the Courts do not have jurisdiction under Article III, section 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
This is certainly a controversy. The Court apparently agreed that it involves the United States, since defendants were represented by DoJ attorneys.
AFAIK, the "particularized injury", in order to have a "case", that keeps the general citizenry from having standing, as opposed to just injury, is a 20th Century innovation. IOW, I'm interested in original undestanding or meaning of Art III, section 2.