On Thursday, a federal judge in Texas dismissed a lawsuit challenging California’s mid-decade redistricting ballot initiative. This decision came as the plaintiff, a supporter of Donald Trump, was found to lack the legal standing required to proceed with the case.

The legal battle was initiated by Rep. Ronny Jackson, a Republican from Amarillo and former White House physician under Trump. In late August, Jackson filed the suit against California Governor Gavin Newsom and Secretary of State Shirley Weber. The lawsuit targeted the Election Rigging Response Act (ERRA).

The ERRA is a strategic piece of legislation that seeks to amend California’s constitution. It aims to redraw the state’s congressional districts in favor of Democrats, contingent upon Texas implementing its own mid-decade redistricting that would advantage Republicans.

Jackson’s lawsuit, spanning nine pages, claimed that the ERRA violated two clauses of the U.S. Constitution: the elections clause and the guarantee clause.

However, in an 11-page memorandum opinion and order, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, did not delve into the constitutional arguments presented by Jackson. Instead, the case was dismissed on the grounds of standing, indicating that the judge did not find Jackson to have a sufficient connection to or harm from the law to sue.

Rather, the conservative jurist began his analysis, and ended his analysis — and ended Jackson’s case at the trial court level — with a discussion of standing that left the court itself lacking jurisdiction.

Kacsmaryk’s analysis — and concomitant ruling in Newsom’s favor — reads like a textbook, if ironic, application of the analytical framework widely known by legal scholars as “conservative standing doctrine.”

This judicial theory was created in two cases from the 1920s by conservative judges who sought to restrain the use and limits of constitutional redress. In other words, standing doctrine was created — and has over time been honed and sustained — to limit lawsuits against the government. While technically procedural in nature, as opposed to relying on the underlying merits arguments in a dispute, standing arguments tend to be fact-intensive.

In the parlance of the federal court system, cases often hit a brick wall when they lack what is referred to as a “cognizable injury” under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. As shorthand, courts often simply refer to the presence or lack of an “Article III injury.”

Kacsmaryk says Jackson has not identified an “injury in fact” that would result from California engaging in partisan gerrymandering.

In one of his follow-up briefs, the Texas representative complained he would lose “his current legislative powers as chair of two subcommittees and personal access to a larger staff of advisors,” as well as his “influence over the congressional majority,” and resulting “opportunities to enhance his media visibility.”

But the court was not having it.

“Plaintiff’s suit is not judicially cognizable,” the opinion reads. “His essential claim is that California’s redistricting proposal could ’cause a type of institutional injury’ — namely, the potential diminution of his party’s representation in Congress. But if this occurs at all, such an outcome would ‘necessarily damage all’ members of his party equally, not just Plaintiff.”

Jackson, for his part, tried to rely on a similar — but ultimately distinct — case, in which another member of Congress was “singled out for specially unfavorable treatment” and had standing to sue. Here, the court noted, Jackson is not being targeted at all.

“[H]e doesn’t seriously argue that he is more likely than his Republican colleagues to be the target of a such a probe, other than to note his ‘significant political support of President Trump,’” the opinion goes on. “Plaintiff is hardly unique among Republican congressmen in that respect, however. Thus, his argument that he is uniquely likely to suffer retribution at the hands of a Democratic majority falls flat.”

The judge also rubbishes Jackson for overstating the facts on the ground, ultimately finding dire prognostications “too attenuated” from the potential results of  the upcoming ballot initiative.

“Plaintiff writes that if this Court does not enjoin California’s upcoming special election, California’s new legislative districts ‘will cause the U.S. House of Representatives to shift from its Republican majority to a Democrat majority by the term beginning in 2027,’” Kacsmaryk recounts. “More accurately, California’s approval of Proposition 50 could or may cause such a result.”

The judge then lists a series of four things that must happen, all conditional on the preceding, for Jackson’s fear to be realized.

“If all of that happens, then Plaintiff might lose perks such as additional staff members, media visibility, and political influence,” the opinion goes on. “This is far too speculative to show causation.”

In turn, Kacsmaryk granted the motion to dismiss filed by Weber and Newsom and dismissed Jackson’s complaint and motions for injunctive relief.