To the best of my recollection, the Supreme Court has never just "nullified" or even reviewed a law, without an actual case before it. Indeed, in order for the Supreme Court to have jurisdiction, there must be a case that has been heard at the circuit court level, and in most cases also at the appellate level. Technically, SCOTUS has no explicit power to "review" laws (check out Article III!) - rather it has the ability to decide on cases brought before it and the rest of the judiciary. If there is no case, there is no grounds for a ruling.
Indeed, the Supreme Court's power rests primarily on a finding of fact that it didn't have grounds to decide. In the famous Marbury v. Madison ruling back in 1803, SCOTUS specifically said the court did not have jurisdiction over the verdict that Jefferson opposed. In doing so, Jefferson was forced to agree with the Court on the areas over which it did have jurisdiction (much to his dismay), thus giving the Court power over judicial and not executive acts. More recently, Obamacare passed Constitutional muster only because the Court said that the plantiffs had no standing to challenge it, and thus that SCOTUS could not strike it down.
Legislative acts are creationary ones. They say "This is how we will do things." They only cease to have effect when they repeal their laws, when the Executive refuses to run them (e.g. DOMA), or when the Court says that they will not allow the Executive to enforce them. They cannot and will not pre-emptively say "This is unconsititutional." There has to be actual harm, an actual case, and only then can there be a "cease and desist" on this.
When someone with standing can show actual harm, then SCOTUS can get involved. Until then, they have to wait.