That separate ruling does not affect a ruling by a different federal judge, barring federal agents from interfering with journalists and legal observers; this ruling includes potential future enforcement against individuals and their supervisors if the judge’s ruling is not obeyed by individuals acting under federal authority or directed by federal agencies.

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/07/judge-inclined-t...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23934702

Imagine going before a Federal judge, whose Courthouse is under attack by people trying to burn it down, and then argue before the judge that Federal officers aren't warranted.

I would not want to show my face in that court ever again.

Federal judiciary can be maddening unwilling to hold executive security apparatus to account. I'm reminded of the NSA surveillance lawsuit, that was shrugged away with the same "lack of standing". And the same question lingering -- then, your honor, who exactly _does_ have standing?

It creates a catch-22-enhanced version of Who’s On First[1][2], except it’s Who Has Legal Standing? It results in judges being hesitant to rule as they ought due to intentional muddying of the jurisdictional hierarchy of bureaucracy and who is able to claim standing and harm. It’s a shell game designed to disempower everyone in the courtroom to the boon of those who can never or will never be brought inside one.

What if change through the courts is impossible because it would take longer than any one person’s life to acquire standing to sue, and have the case heard?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%27s_on_First%3F

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg