That was actually addressed on Page 7 of the decision.
They begin with "The stare decisis considerations most relevant here—“the quality of [the precedent’s] reasoning, the workability of the rule it established,..." and proceed to find the considerations "all weigh in favor of letting Chevron go"
Arguing stare decisis was invalid when the reasoning behind even hearing the case is ideological was necessary- it essentially is the only reasoning they could make.
So what though? I don't know exactly the reasoning for standing requirements, but they clearly weren't intended to prevent suits over things that affect millions of people in exactly the same way. I mean, standing would prevent man from suing to overturn a ban on women voting, but that's clearly a bug, not a feature.
My point is that you can find evidence for any outcome. The Supreme Court has a stance they like and backpedal to make the argument for it leading to inconsistent rulings.
There are a myraid of ways that roe vs wade could've turned out and in the final ruling document they'd all fit the correct format.
> [2] McCorvey gave birth to a daughter at Dallas Osteopathic Hospital on June 2, 1970
At that point she lost standing similar to another Jane Doe whose case became moot because she already had the abortion [1] and the desired action (injunction against an abortion) is irrelevant because it's already happened.
They begin with "The stare decisis considerations most relevant here—“the quality of [the precedent’s] reasoning, the workability of the rule it established,..." and proceed to find the considerations "all weigh in favor of letting Chevron go"
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
If you read the decision on abortion, you will find they spend significant time arguing that stare decisis underpinning Roe v Wade is not valid.