The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a Texas lawsuit against Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania over election rules.
The lawsuit brought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Tuesday had urged the court to delay the appointment of presidential electors in those states so allegations of fraud can be investigated.
In their order, the High Court wrote the case was rejected for a “lack of standing.”
“The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution,” the statement from the Supreme Court read. “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”
Justice Alito and Thomas disagree
Justice Samuel Alito issued a statement with the dismissal that was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, arguing that the Supreme Court should take up the case.
“In my view, we do not have the discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction,” Alito wrote, arguing that he would grant the motion to file the bill of complaint.
But Alito signaled he would not have granted the state of Texas the ability to halt the election certification as the challenge requested.
“I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue,” he concluded.
The three justices appointed by Trump, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch did not voice an opinion on the case, according to Breitbart.
The suit argued that the four states illegally made changes to the voting rules through the courts instead of through state legislatures, violating the Electors Clause. It also argues the differences in voting rules in different counties violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and cites claims of voting irregularities in the states.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court refused to hear an effort to overturn the results of the presidential election in Pennsylvania.
That suit, brought by GOP Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.), argued that a 2019 state law authorizing mail-in ballots was unconstitutional, meaning that Pennsylvania’s 2.5 million postal votes would have been tossed.
In a one-sentence order, the High Court wrote: “The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.”
On Monday, 538 electors from across the nation will convene to cast their vote for president and vice president of the United States.
Reactions to the news from the Supreme Court
“The true casualty of the Supreme Court‘s decision is an erosion of the power of state legislators to make election law. There’s still evidence that needs to be considered. The House may be the last forum available for us to present our arguments,” Rep. Matt Gaetz responded to Supreme Court’s decision.
The Supreme Court just ensured that the Supreme Court will be destroyed as an institution, as Joe Biden will be ordered by his socialist overlords to pack it into oblivion. It will be larger than the Senate soon,” Dean Browning tweeted.
Wisconsin Supreme Court to hear Trump lawsuit appeal
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has taken on a case by President Trump’s legal team, seeking to have hundreds of thousands of ballots in Democratic Dane and Milwaukee Counties thrown out, even after a circuit court judge dismissed the case Friday.
The court’s decision to take the case, and to hear arguments on Saturday, came hours after a lower court judge ruled against Trump and said there was nothing illegal about the election or subsequent recount in the state’s two largest counties. The highly unusual Saturday arguments will come exactly 48 hours before Monday’s scheduled Electoral College vote.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court court previously refused to hear Trump’s state case before it went through the lower courts.
The Trump campaign challenged roughly 220,000 ballots recounted in Milwaukee and Dane counties last month. The ballots fall into four different groups, including absentee ballots cast by voters who did not fill out a ballot request application, and ballot envelopes that had missing witness address information filled by election clerks.
Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge Stephen Simanek adopted all of the arguments proposed by the defendants, explaining that in deciding so he relied on guidance that the will of the voters should prevail in resolving any election-related administrative challenges. (More detail)