1) Does Article III allow an organization to sue when an unknown number of its unidentified members "may be" injured, as the Ninth Circuit held below in conflict with at least seven other circuits?

2) Did the Ninth Circuit improperly reweigh evidence of discriminatory purpose while purporting to review the district court's finding for clear error?

Whether Article III permits an organization to sue on behalf of an unknown number of unidentified members who 'may be' injured by a law, and whether the Ninth Circuit improperly reweighed evidence of discriminatory purpose while reviewing for clear error