The Supreme Court of the United States has just come in with their decision as to whether or not they are going to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania, et al, the case filed by Texas against four contested states — Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — alleging that they had violated the Constitution in their conduct of the election, including by making up rules that had not been passed by the state legislatures.

Now Texas filed the case as one of original jurisdiction, meaning that because it is a suit between the states, that the Court can take it up on that basis. Texas is saying that their interests were impaired by the other states failing to act in accordance with their state laws and the Constitution.

But the majority of the Court clearly disagreed with that contention in their short decision.

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. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

That means they’re kicking all the other motions attendant to the original Texas filing as well.

Now there was a notable disagreement to this decision and it’s troubling that only two justices joined in it.

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. 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.

Both of them are saying they believe that it is a case of original jurisdiction so they have no discretion not to hear it. But they would not grant other relief and are not making any other conclusions apart from that.