The federal courts cannot hear any suit if it does not present a "case or controversy," which requires that the party bringing the suit has suffered an injury, and that that injury is "concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling.” Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 149 (2010).
But disagreeing with the phrasing of a Supreme Court opinion doesn't satisfy that test:
- That injury isn't concrete because it doesn't invade a "“legally protected interest” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). “Suits to vindicate the public's nonconcrete interest in the proper administration of the laws” are not concrete. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 497 (2009).
- That injury isn't particularized because it doesn't “affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.” Lujan, 561 n.1 (1992). Instead, it is "undifferentiated and common to all members of the public." United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 177 (1974).
- And because it isn't a concrete injury, it can't really be redressible, as a favorable ruling wouldn't do anything to improve the plaintiff's legal position.
Lujan provides a good explanation of these principles. There, a group of environmentalists sued the government to change a regulation that limited the scope of the Endangered Species Act to exclude actions taken in foreign countries, arguing that it was contrary to law. But the Supreme Court rejected the suit for lack of standing because the organization didn't have any special interest in the outcome of the dispute: its members wouldn't be directly affected by an improper interpretation of the law, nor was it sufficient to assert an interest in seeing the law properly interpreted and enforced:
We have consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government — claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large — does not state an Article III case or controversy.
Further, a case or controversy generally requires adversarial presentation of the case. An ex parte case would be just one person asking the court to rewrite its precedents and therefore fail that test, as well. Ashwander v. Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 346 (1936) (“The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, non-adversary proceeding.”).
Even if there were some way to turn this into a real case or controversy, it could not be brought directly to the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction is limited to a few specific types of cases. This case would not fit into any of those categories.