Read on Twitter
It's been a bit more than 12 hours since SCOTUS tossed out the Texas v Pennsylvania et al lawsuit, and the disinformation narratives are starting to stabilize a bit. So it seems like a good time to carefully walk through the order that the Supreme Court issued.
It's quite short, but each sentence is important.
1: "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"
This doesn't just deny leave to file. It also says why leave was denied.
1: "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"
This doesn't just deny leave to file. It also says why leave was denied.
This is not something the court always does, as this screenshot from the Court's order in Arizona v California shows.
In this case, the reason given translates as: "the Constitution says we can't hear your complaint."
In this case, the reason given translates as: "the Constitution says we can't hear your complaint."
That's what "lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution" means.
Standing isn't procedural. It's constitutional. Dismissing for lack of standing isn't a punt, and it's not a technicality. It's what the Constitution requires the Court to do.
Standing isn't procedural. It's constitutional. Dismissing for lack of standing isn't a punt, and it's not a technicality. It's what the Constitution requires the Court to do.
The next sentence explains why there was no standing: "Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections."
This is not the Court telling Texas how to refile and try again.
This is not the Court telling Texas how to refile and try again.
"Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections" translates as "Texas, mind your own damn business."
That's a very blunt statement from the Court - judicially phrased, to be sure, but blunt nonetheless.
That's a very blunt statement from the Court - judicially phrased, to be sure, but blunt nonetheless.
And it's not as if Texas forgot to try to show that they had an interest. They knew they had to show one, and they made a real effort.
This is the court rejecting all of those efforts with one sentence.
This is the court rejecting all of those efforts with one sentence.
Will that have precedential weight? I hope we don't have to find out.
That said, it doesn't need much precedential weight. "The individual states are sovereign" is a fundamental principle, and Texas's efforts flew in the face of literally centuries of law.
That said, it doesn't need much precedential weight. "The individual states are sovereign" is a fundamental principle, and Texas's efforts flew in the face of literally centuries of law.
"All other pending motions are dismissed as moot."
That needs no explanation. What may is Rudy's chiropteran-excrement ravings about trying again in the lower courts. In theory, that would be possible under a ruling like this - the court didn't rule on Trump's claims.
That needs no explanation. What may is Rudy's chiropteran-excrement ravings about trying again in the lower courts. In theory, that would be possible under a ruling like this - the court didn't rule on Trump's claims.
In reality, Rudy and Trump and Jenna kinda have a big problem here: Texas didn't make new arguments; most of them have already been rejected in the lower courts.
It's not a video game. You don't get a new attempt every time you drop a $400 filing fee in the slot.
It's not a video game. You don't get a new attempt every time you drop a $400 filing fee in the slot.
The Wisconsin claims, for example, are being adjudicated this weekend in Wisconsin. There's a Georgia state law case. And so on, and so forth.
The courts have spoken. They did not stutter.
The courts have spoken. They did not stutter.
Even if Trump wasn't almost out of time, he's still out of chances.
Moving on, we have:
"Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:"
This, predictably, is the bit that many of the conservative nutters have latched onto. But that's an error on their part.
"Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:"
This, predictably, is the bit that many of the conservative nutters have latched onto. But that's an error on their part.
"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." This is, as plenty of lawyers explained this week, a statement we expected to see.
Thomas and Alito have been consistent on that.
Thomas and Alito have been consistent on that.
By the way, I think I agree with them on the principle, at least where SCOTUS's original jurisdiction is also exclusive. Requiring someone to get permission to file when there's only one court that can hear the case makes me a bit uneasy. But that's not important right now.
What is important is the next thing they say:
"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."
Particularly the "would not grant other relief" part.
"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."
Particularly the "would not grant other relief" part.
Remember, Texas wasn't just asking to have the case heard. They also wanted a preliminary injunction blocking the electors in those states from meeting. Alito and Thomas were not on board with that.
This means they found that request to lack merit.
This means they found that request to lack merit.
They do not specify why, of course, but there aren't that many options. They either thought the case lacked merit, or that the Court can't provide that relief, or - probably - both.
In other words, they would have let Texas in the door and then tossed them right back out again.
In other words, they would have let Texas in the door and then tossed them right back out again.
So, no, Alito and Thomas did not express any approval of the case; in fact, they showed active disapproval of the most important part of the case.
There's no room for spin with this case; Texas was repudiated.
So what next?
So what next?
As a practical matter, the court cases are done - there are a few left, but not many and not in enough places to even theoretically affect the outcome. The electors will meet in ~48 hours (less in EST, a bit more in Hawaii).
Biden will receive way more than 270 votes.
Biden will receive way more than 270 votes.
Trump and some of the Congresscritters who have to have their oxygen pumped in to them through Trump's belly button will undoubtedly create some drama in Congress on Jan 6th.
But, as @greg_doucette points out, they can't really change the outcome.
But, as @greg_doucette points out, they can't really change the outcome.
I'll keep looking at the lawsuits, of course, including the more outlandishly outrageous, like the birther one in California. But the legal fight is in the mop-up phase. (Really, that's been true for weeks, but Trump has been good at fooling people into thinking otherwise.)
We're at the "ending with a lot of whimpering" stage of the Trump administration.
/fin
/fin
