"The two men (including the lead plaintiff, King) have declared in court papers that they were “not eligible for health insurance from the government or any employer” when the lawsuit was filed in 2013. Mr. King said in a Thursday interview that he didn’t recall his lawyers’ asking him about his access to veterans care. Mr. Hurst declined to comment on his veteran status or insurance coverage at his home on Thursday."

"American University law professor Amanda Frost, who isn’t involved in the case, said, “If they already have access to free health care as vets, they would seem to have no injury.” Their veteran status also calls into question whether their lawyers “did their homework” in vetting the plaintiffs, she said."

The whole case stinks, it should never have been even taken up this now thoroughly discredited judicial body the majority of which are still humping and pumping Citizen's United as a good thing.

This is the SCOTUS that happens when judicial independence is discarded as a purely intellectual exercise, purely politicized, the natural result is public confidence is undermined and no matter what the judicial ruling in any matter the result will always be just more lack of confidence.

I know SCOTUS makes a decision on the case the day they hear oral arguments. Then the decision (and any rebuttals) are written.

So now, in the middle of writing the decision they discover the plaintiff has no standing.

What exactly can be done now?

If they rule against the ACA with a plaintiff who has no standing they'll really destroy any shred of credibility they have ever had!

Surely the right answer is to throw the case out now?

Has this ever happened before DU legal beagles??

There are four plaintiffs. Only one is needed.