Does a beneficiary have standing for a First Amendment challenge to a state statute requiring divestment from companies boycotting Israel?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Question No. 1 presented: Does a beneficiary of a public retirement fund have standing to bring a First Amendment facial challenge to a state statute that requires funds to divest from and refrain from investing in companies that the state believes boycott Israel? Does the standing analysis change when the plaintiff alleges the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad, purposefully endorses one religious viewpoint over others, and requires the managers of the funds to prioritize the state politicians’ ideological viewpoints over their fiduciary duties to the beneficiaries? Question No. 2 presented: Did the Fifth Circuit err in failing to conduct a separate standing analysis for the constitutional injuries alleged, instead conducting only a cursory analysis that duplicates its economic injury analysis? Question No. 3 presented: Did the Fifth Circuit err in failing to evaluate stigmatic injury as sufficient to satisfy the injury-in-fact element of Article III standing to bring Establishment Clause claims, contradicting this Court’s precedent and creating a circuit split?