Saturday, December 12, 2020

The Nays to Texas


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.


Evl said...

The John Roberts Court has morphed into political establishment rather than a judicial one. This decision is an outrage and further evidence that our institutions have failed us. It is clear where we are headed and there's no turning back and no Rx for this catastrophe.
RIP wonderful USA.

David Beidler said...

I am gratified to read this Professor, I agreed with Alito’s dissent.