“Here’s the actual opinion”
Here’s a piece of it, abbreviated:
Plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge ... because they have not shown an ... injury traceable to defendants’ conduct enforcing the specific statutory provision.
Guess the court doesn’t rule directly on a constitutional issue, but rather they rule based on an injury or injustice resulting from the constitutional issue.
If the defendants don’t have standing, then what surprises me is not the verdict, but that they decided to hear the case in the first place