Read on Twitter
Long thread:
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. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.
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. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.
2) All other pending motions are dismissed as moot." Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: "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."
3) See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). "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."
4) In short, #SCOTUS rejected the TX case because TX filed their case as "motion for leave to file a bill of complaint". However, SCOTUS signals to TX and other states that if they file their cases as "motion to file the bill of complaint", then their cases will be heard.
5) So, now, we wait to see if TX and/or other states file their cases correctly to SCOTUS again.
We will see what happens.
We will see what happens.
