SCOTUS Shoots Down TX Election Reversal Gambit Praised By Trump As ‘The Big One’

CAPITOL HILL, WASHINGTON DC, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES - 2013/06/01: Supreme Court Building, eastern facade. (Photo by John Greim/LightRocket via Getty Images)
CAPITOL HILL, WASHINGTON DC, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES - 2013/06/01: Supreme Court Building, eastern facade. (Photo by John Greim/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Texas’ unhinged bid to overturn the election results in four battleground states will end not in a bang, but a whimper.

The Supreme Court on Friday said that Texas did not meet the procedural thresholds that would warrant the court’s review of its lawsuit.

The order is the latest defeat President Trump’s allies have suffered in court in their attempts to muck up Joe Biden electoral victory.

After the Supreme Court rejected a similar Pennsylvania lawsuit seeking to disturb those results, Trump promised that the Texas gambit was actually “the big one.”

Texas was seeking to invoke what’s known as original jurisdiction — which gives the Supreme Court the exclusive authority to hear legal disputes between the states  — so it could sue Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia and Michigan to challenge those states’ election results. All four states elected Biden. But Texas was arguing —by citing conspiracy theories about how the states’ handled their elections — that the Supreme Court should void those results and let the legislatures determine the electors that would be sent to the Electoral College instead.

The court did not weigh in on the merits of those claims. Rather, Supreme Court said in unsigned order on Friday that Texas had “not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”

The order came with a separate statement from Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, who took a different view of the court’s procedural obligations to review the case.

“In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction,” the statement said, though it added that justices would not have granted Texas’ request to immediately block those states from formalizing Biden’s victory  and that they were expressing “no view on any other issue.”

Read the order below:

Dear Reader,

When we asked recently what makes TPM different from other outlets, readers cited factors like honesty, curiosity, transparency, and our vibrant community. They also pointed to our ability to report on important stories and trends long before they are picked up by mainstream outlets; our ability to contextualize information within the arc of history; and our focus on the real-world consequences of the news.

Our unique approach to reporting and presenting the news, however, wouldn’t be possible without our readers’ support. That’s not just marketing speak, it’s true: our work would literally not be possible without readers deciding to become members. Not only does member support account for more than 80% of TPM’s revenue, our members have helped us build an engaged and informed community. Many of our best stories were born from reader tips and valuable member feedback.

We do what other news outlets can’t or won’t do because our members’ support gives us real independence.

If you enjoy reading TPM and value what we do, become a member today.

Latest News
Comments
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Investigations Desk:
Reporters:
Newswriters:
Director of Audience:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: