Contrary to the reporting and other popular belief, the Supreme Court did NOT NOT take the Texas election case.
The court took jurisdiction, and then denied Texas’ request to “file a bill of complaint.”
Because “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.
In other words, Texas suffered a “lack of standing [to sue] under Article III of the Constitution,” as I and other constitutional law specialists predicted.
Lastly, Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas dissented because in their view the Supreme Court does “not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. 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.”
I, and others, agree with the dissent – properly pleaded original jurisdiction complaints must be taken by the Court, and once taken can be dealt with pursuant to Constitutional and statutory procedural and substantive principles – but as I have said above, the Court did take jurisdiction because I can’t see how they could otherwise have denied Texas’ motion by making a substantive decision on standing to sue, also an Article III provision with a long history of resolving whether a “case or controversy” has been presented.