Whether a plaintiff must show that a challenged government act is the sole cause of its injury to have standing

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. To have standing to challenge an unlawful government act, must a plaintiff show that the act is the sole cause of its injury, as the Fifth Circuit held, or only that the act contributes to its injury, as the Second, Fourth, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have held? 2. When a plaintiff asserts standing based on selfcensorship in response to a law with a mens rea element, must the plaintiff show that it would otherwise possess the prohibited mens rea, as the Fifth Circuit held, or only that the plaintiff wishes to engage in conduct that might reasonably be interpreted to violate the law, as the Eighth Circuit has held?