A small town lawyer's read of the SCOTUS Order.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. Alito and Thomas have previously opined that the Supreme Court *must* hear

any state vs. state case, because those are the only cases over which the court has both original and exclusive jurisdiction. 28 U.S. Code § 1251 (a) says "The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States." Alito and Thomas have argued in previous cases that the fact that exclusive jurisdiction means that the Supreme Court is the only court where those cases can be heard means it would be unfair to the complaining state to dismiss its case without even a preliminary hearing, because that state would have no other court to hear it. It's not an entirely stupid opinion, but it's not the way the court has traditionally handled those cases. So their dissent actually is quite clear, given their stated opinion on these cases. They just wanted to make the point that their opinion that the court must hear the case doesn't necessarily mean they think the case has substantive merit.

To me, though, they have it backwards. If Texas doesn't have standing, the court doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction, meaning they couldn't hear the case anyhow.