> Whether they read it or not, they didn't comment on its merits, but rather said plainly that Texas doesn't have standing. That is to say, something may be amiss, but Texas can't be the one to sue over it.

Sort of. Thomas and Alito said that they would hear the case, but wouldn't grant any of the requested relief. This still technically doesn't comment on the merits (the relief requested was not really grantable), but its more than just Texas can't sue over it, even if they could the things they were asking for couldn't be done.

Wouldn't the lack of standing be an aspect of the merits of the suit? In any case, the supreme court isn't the sole judge of the merits of a case, they are just the arbiters of the outcome.

In English, yes. However, "on the merits" is a term of art that explicitly excludes procedural matters like "can you even bring this case" or "did you file on time." Standing is a procedural issue.

So while the suit was thrown out for being obviously faulty, it did not fail "on its merits." Mind you, that does not make the objection sensible. If I write "they are bad because they are a poopy face" in crayon, and then I don't pay my filing fees and the case is thrown out for that reason, I am technically correct that my case was not heard on its merits, but that doesn't make it a good point.

The case went to the Supreme Court. It wasn't tried in any lower courts because cases between states have original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court can reject a case for lack of standing (the plaintiff does not have the right to sue the defendant) or for lack of merit (the lawsuit is obviously frivolous). They can also reject it if they think the lower court ruled correctly, but that doesn't apply here.

Standing and merits are both terms of art. Merits essentially means whether one side wins or not. Standing OTOH is a preliminary matter like jurisdiction. If the court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant or the subject matter of the dispute, they kick the case on jurisdiction without reaching the merits. If the plaintiff doesn't have standing, they kick the case on standing without reaching the merits.

Your confusion is 100% reasonable because there is _conceptual_ overlap between standing and "who wins." For example, one aspect of standing is "injury-in-fact." That means "you suffered a harm recognized by the legal system." If the court says no standing because no injury-in-fact, to a layperson that's similar to saying "stop crying, go home." Which sounds a lot like saying "you lose the case."

Thomas and Alito went out of their way to say that they thought Texas had standing but would still not grant further relief

Right. If I recall correctly, their position is that the Supreme Court can't refuse disputes between states.