Technically speaking, it's not a "jurisdiction" issue. It's one of "justiciability" which is the more general concept. The question is not whether SCOTUS has, for example, appellate jurisdiction or even subject matter jurisdiction in any particular case that is otherwise something that a court could judge. The question is rather whether the issue itself is the kind of issue that is ever properly before any court. Our law is that some issues are not "justiciable" for a number of reasons. In the present situation, it seems to me that the reason it's likely no "justiciable" is because it's the kind of question that is given over wholly to the States to decide and no court may therefore decide the issue.
I hope I'm wrong.
I see nothing unsettling or ambiguous in the challenge/suit. The argument is sound and the ability to make judgement is without legal reservation.
I completely disagree with your belief that its ‘kind of question/issue’ that remands back to the state to resolve.
The challenge is not constitutionally dubious... it absolutely has a clear constitutional path of adjudication and is the obligation and duty of SCOTUS to decide pursuant to supreme law, and not punt and treat is like a hot potato.