“The majority cited a previous ruling in a separate challenge, which said that because the ban is enforced by private individuals and not government officials, it is not clear when and how the law can be challenged in federal court.”

No one can take issue with the fact the vigilante law parts are vague and ambiguous…aside from ofc being unconstitutional delegation of State law enforcement…,
yet the Unjustices in the majority ruled…wait for it…

…that the naughty vigilante bits are SO vague and ambiguous it needs further study. ?? Meanwhile the vigilantes can have at it.

Not a word from the majority on the scathing and clearly correct jurisprudence of the Judge whose ruling they so swiftly overturned. Oblivious to their own written hypocrisy.