Texas v. Pennsylvania
Texas v. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), was a lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court contesting the administration of the 2020 presidential election in four other states, in which Joe Biden defeated incumbent Donald Trump.
Texas v. Pennsylvania
State of Texas v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of Georgia, State of Michigan, and State of Wisconsin
Alito, joined by Thomas
Filed by Texas State Attorney General Ken Paxton on December 8, 2020, under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, Texas v. Pennsylvania alleged that Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin violated the United States Constitution by changing election procedures through non-legislative means – thus violating the independent state legislature theory. The suit sought to temporarily withhold the certified vote count from these four states prior to the Electoral College vote on December 14. The suit was filed after about 90 lawsuits arising from disputes over the election results filed by Trump and the Republican Party had failed in numerous state and federal courts.
The suit had been drafted by a team of lawyers with ties to the Trump presidential campaign. Paxton agreed to file the case after other state attorneys general declined to do so. The Solicitor General of Texas Kyle D. Hawkins objected to the suit and refused to let his name be added. Paxton hired Lawrence J. Joseph, who had helped draft the suit, as special counsel to assist with the suit.[1]
Within one day of Texas's filing, Trump, over 100 Republican Representatives, and 18 Republican state attorneys general filed motions to support the case.[2][3] Trump referred to this case as "the big one" of the election-challenging lawsuits.[4] Attorneys general for the defendant states, joined in briefs submitted by their counterparts from twenty other states, two territories, and the District of Columbia,[5] urged the Court to refuse the case, with Pennsylvania's brief calling it a "seditious abuse of the judicial process".[6] Legal experts argued that the case was not likely to be heard and not likely to succeed if it did get heard, and that it was thus a "Hail Mary" action.[7][8][9]
The Supreme Court issued orders on December 11, declining to hear the case on the basis that Texas lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution to challenge the results of the election held by another state.[10][11]
Filings[edit]
Procedure[edit]
The case was filed on December 8, 2020, directly with the Supreme Court as it holds original jurisdiction over disputes between states.[16][17][18] Such cases are infrequent: there were 123 "original jurisdiction" cases from 1789 to 1959.[19] Original jurisdiction cases are immediately docketed pursuant to Rule 17 once the plaintiff submits its motion for leave to file and pays its docket fees.[20][a] Because the suit requested expedited consideration, the Court set a deadline at 3:00 p.m. on December 10 for the four defendant states to respond.[19][21] Whereas a typical case submitted through a writ of certiorari requires only four justices to accept to be certified by the Supreme Court, this case would have required five justices.[22]
Reactions to court filing[edit]
Law[edit]
The suit was criticized by legal experts and called "outlandish".[48][18][49] University of Texas School of Law law professor Stephen I. Vladeck called the suit the "craziest lawsuit filed to purportedly challenge the election". Election law expert Rick Hasen characterized the lawsuit as a "press release masquerading as a lawsuit" and "the dumbest case I've ever seen filed on an emergency basis at the Supreme Court."[50][49] Edward Foley, director of the election law program at Ohio State University, urged the court to ignore the case and refrain from interfering in the election.[17]
Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School described the 11th-hour case a "Hail Mary pass" that was "creative but unlikely to win", because alleging that Texas, instead of its voters, was injured (in order to bypass the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) is "far-fetched"; he also expressed concern that the case was filed too late.[9]
Another Harvard Law professor, Noah Feldman, characterized the lawsuit as a coup attempt by Republicans to overturn the results of the election.[51]
Senator Ted Cruz, who previously served as Solicitor General of Texas and argued several cases before the Court while serving in that capacity, accepted Trump's request to argue the case should the Court hear it.[52]
Legal experts also did not expect the Supreme Court to certify the case, given its reluctance to hear post-election challenges. On the same day as Texas's filing, the Court refused to hear arguments in another post-election challenge, Kelly v. Pennsylvania, without any dissents.[22][53] The defendants also argued that the legal principle of laches, which may bar an action if it is filed too late, is grounds for dismissing Texas's claim.[31][54][b]