Turnabout is fair play?

In the case of the suit against the Trump travel ban, an obvious question was, “What standing does Washington state have to allow it to bring suit? How can it claim injury?”

The answer given is that the state economy is damaged by the dislocations which the ban produce, and so the state has been injured and has standing to sue.

I find this a most entertaining argument, since it turns the “interstate commerce” argument right around and aims it at the Feds.
Since the Federal government has argued, for instance, that growing pot in one’s back yard for personal use means that the grower does not buy in the (illegal) market, and thus affects the interstate economy in marijuana, it seems perfectly reasonable for the state of Washington to claim that its economy is being damaged by the effects on individuals within its borders. Sauce for the goose, etc.

Granted, I don’t think either argument should be allowed to stand, but if the principle is going to be established it certainly seems that it should do so fairly.