HOUSTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit backed by President Donald Trump to overturn Joe Biden's election victory, ending a desperate attempt to get legal issues rejected by state and federal judges before the nation's highest court.
The court's order Friday was its second this week rebuffing Republican requests that it get involved in the 2020 election outcome.
In a blog post, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas said that Texas "has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections."
"We do not have the discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction," the justices said in the brief.
According to a press release from the Republican Party of Texas, which was obtained by ABC News' Adam Kelsey, the decision by the justices would have huge ramifications that would possibly see law-abiding states banding together to form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.
The @TexasGOP is out with a statement in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, all but calling for secession:— Adam Kelsey (@adamkelsey) December 12, 2020
“Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.” pic.twitter.com/4bB3gk88t4
The justices turned away an appeal from Pennsylvania Republicans on Tuesday.
A Trump-appointed federal judge was among a three-judge panel that threw out a lawsuit in Pennsylvania.
The Electoral College meets Monday to formally elect Biden as the next president.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court has denied Texas' last-ditch effort to overturn the election results in four battleground states that voted for Joe Biden. https://t.co/tZ1Vepu0Oh— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) December 11, 2020
In a very brief order, the court says Texas lacks Article III standing to sue other states over how they conduct their own elections. In layperson's words: a state has no valid interest, under the Constitution, in attempting to police other states' voting procedures. pic.twitter.com/o2TRRN2PmM— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) December 11, 2020
The separate statement from Alito/Thomas is based on their view (not shared by a majority of the court) that SCOTUS is obligated to take up any case that invokes the court's "original jurisdiction." It's a technical issue and says nothing about the underlying merits of the case.— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) December 11, 2020