SCOTUS has dismissed Texas' preposterous and offensive attempt to overturn the election and install Trump as president. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf

"Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections."

*DENIED

Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, would grant the motion for leave to file but "not grant other relief."

The other relief Texas had sought was a preliminary injunction or a TRO.

Justices Alito and Thomas have, in the past, expressed their view that original actions should not require leave of the Court, which is why they have the separate statement.

I wished for a more fulsome rejection of this despicable attempt to overthrow an election.

Texas' action was procedurally improper, which is the ground that SCOTUS denied it on. It was also substantively meritless and offensively anti-democratic and anti-conservative on top.

One thing I will note is that the decision to reject Texas' attempt to overthrow the election is unanimous.

SCOTUS did not waste time coming together to say with one voice—Justices Thomas and Alito's quibble about leave notwithstanding—NOPE.

I'm wondering how confused MAGAheads will be over this.

Recall that they were claiming that SCOTUS had already accepted the case, when in fact Texas had merely filed a motion for leave to file the case.

This ends the process at that threshold step.

If you're confused about this "leave to file" business, see this thread from the other day --> https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1336439498289389582

So to break this down in the most basic terms.

Texas had to ask SCOTUS for leave—that is, permission—to file the complaint against PA, MI, WI, GA.

Today SCOTUS is denying permission. So the case is dead.

Next question: is it over? is it really over?

Well . . . technically no. The various Kraken lawsuits are still pending appeal in front of a couple different circuit courts. Those theoretically are still live, even though they don't have a snowball's chance in hell.

And technically the campaign is still within the period for asking SCOTUS to take the case that Giuliani tanked in Pennsylvania related to observers and curing ballots. So, if the campaign really, really wanted, they could still try and stand that one back up.

And there are a few state cases still working their way along. The Wisconsin Supreme Court will consider one of those tomorrow, I believe.

So . . . it's not completely over. But it's a lot closer to over than it was twenty minutes ago.

*whimper*

There's no such thing as a "limited dissent." There is no such thing.

And technically we don't know the vote break down. Only that there weren't enough votes to grant (it takes five) and Alito/Thomas don't think leave is required but not grant relief anyway. https://twitter.com/MajorCBS/status/1337545741770829824

For the sake of completeness, this tweet is more technically accurate if we say "SCOTUS' decision to reject Texas' attempt to overthrow the election has no noted dissents." https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1337543194989490176

You reporters are gonna give me a fit.

This is not a "dissent in part." Do you see the word "dissent" in there? Look closely. https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1337542355302420483

I guess this is a teaching moment. Hokay, this is an order. SCOTUS, with no noted dissents, is denying Texas leave to file—that is, permission to file—its complaint.

That's the top part.

The second part, is a Statement (not a concurring opinion, not a dissenting opinion) from Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, that they do not believe leave is required because they do not believe the Court has discretion to deny the filing of an original action.

That's the first sentence of the Statement. The second sentence is what's called a citation sentence.

"See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting)."

That signals the legal reader to look to Thomas' dissent in Arizona v. California.

That citation sentence does not mean that Justice Thomas is separately dissenting here.

Here, he simply joined the statement of Justice Alito, which points to Thomas' dissent in Arizona v. California from earlier this year.

If you haven't had to read legal opinions before, you might not know what a citation sentence is, or how it works.

You learned something today!