They have certainly been asked to decide it, but they can rule that the issue isn't yet ripe.
At least one case at the Circuit level was decided on the basis of "standing," of some form. IIRC, it was the one where a state passed a law making federalized purchase mandates illegal in that state.
no, the order sets forth exactly what is to be argued, constitutionality is what will be decided.
They've got conflicting lower court rulings piling up left and right. I don't think they can punt on this one.