Texas v. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), was a lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court contesting the administration of the 2020 presidential election in four states in which Joe Biden defeated then-incumbent president Donald Trump.
Filed by Texas state attorney general Ken Paxton on December 8, 2020, under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, the lawsuit alleged that Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin violated the United States Constitution by changing election procedures through non-legislative means – thus violating the independent state legislature theory. The suit sought to temporarily withhold the certified vote count from these four states prior to the Electoral College vote on December 14. The suit was filed after over 60 lawsuits arising from disputes over the election results filed by Trump and the Republican Party had failed in numerous state and federal courts.
The suit had been drafted by a team of lawyers with ties to the Trump presidential campaign. Paxton agreed to file the case after other state attorneys general declined to do so. The solicitor general of Texas Kyle D. Hawkins objected to the suit and refused to let his name be added. Paxton hired Lawrence J. Joseph, who had helped draft the suit, as special counsel to assist with the suit.
Within one day of Texas's filing, Trump, over 100 Republican representatives, and 18 Republican state attorneys general filed motions to support the case. Trump referred to this case as "the big one" of the election-challenging lawsuits. Attorneys general for the defendant states, joined in briefs submitted by their counterparts from twenty other states, two territories, and the District of Columbia, urged the Court to refuse the case, with Pennsylvania's brief calling it a "seditious abuse of the judicial process". Legal experts argued that the case was not likely to be heard and not likely to succeed if it did, and that it was thus a "Hail Mary" action.
The Supreme Court issued orders on December 11, dismissing the case on the basis that Texas lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution to challenge the results of the election held by another state.
Background
Several states changed their voting laws prior to the 2020 United States presidential election to make postal voting easier, due to fears that in-person voting would expose people to COVID-19. Legal challenges to the changes were raised across the country. A number of these cases involved voting regulations that were altered by states' executive branches and not by state legislatures. In Texas v. Pennsylvania, Texas claimed that such alterations violated Article Two of the United States Constitution.
The initial tallies of votes, completed within the week of election day, showed that Joe Biden had won sufficient votes in the Electoral College to secure the presidency over incumbent Donald Trump. Trump and the Republican National Committee (RNC) launched many lawsuits against swing states challenging their vote tallies, particularly in states that had voted for Trump in the 2016 United States presidential election but had turned to Biden in 2020, such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia. Most of the cases raised by Trump and the RNC were dismissed on procedural grounds or rejected on substantive grounds in the courts and did not affect the projected Electoral College result. PolitiFact noted that the forces behind reversing the election had by this point "lost dozens of election lawsuits."
Before and after the election, Trump stated his expectation that the Supreme Court would determine the outcome. After the election, his legal team sought to bring a case before the Court, on which conservative justices—including three appointed by Trump—held a 6–3 majority.Multiple sources:
Filings Procedure The case was filed on December 8, 2020, directly with the Supreme Court as it holds original jurisdiction over disputes between states. Such cases are infrequent: there were 123 "original jurisdiction" cases from 1789 to 1959. Original jurisdiction cases are immediately docketed pursuant to Rule 17 once the plaintiff submits its motion for leave to file and pays its docket fees. Because the suit requested expedited consideration, the Court set a deadline at 3:00 p.m. on December 10 for the four defendant states to respond. Whereas a typical case submitted through a writ of certiorari requires only four justices to accept to be certified by the Supreme Court, this case would have required five justices.
Texas
The suit was filed by Texas attorney general Ken Paxton. It claimed that Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin violated the Constitution by changing their election procedures to limit the spread of COVID-19. The case was filed on the same day as the "safe harbor" threshold, beyond which Congress must accept certified results from states ahead of the Electoral College's official vote on December 14, 2020. The suit alleged that the four states "ignor[ed] statutory requirements as to how [mail-in ballots] were received, evaluated and counted". It further argued that electoral processes in the four defendant states "suffered from significant and unconstitutional irregularities", and therefore that it was not clear who "legitimately won the 2020 election".
In the lawsuit, Texas alleged that the defendant states, by changing their election processes, violated three clauses of the Constitution: the Electors Clause (ArticleII, Section1, Clause2), the Equal Protection Clause, and the Due Process Clause. In particular, it argued the Constitution requires changes to electoral procedures to be made only by state legislatures, and not by executives such as secretaries of state. Accordingly, it argued, changes to election procedures made by executive action, and not by alterations to state law, rendered election results constitutionally infirm.
Texas argued it had standing to sue to prevent its votes from becoming "diluted". Texas instead alleged that "fraud becomes undetectable" because "unlawful actions of election officials effectively destroy the evidence". Whether "voters committed fraud" was not the "constitutional issue" in this case, according to Texas. Therefore, Texas declared that it did not need to "prove" fraud.
Texas sought relief by requesting the Supreme Court block those four states from voting in the electoral college and extend the deadline by which states must submit their certified vote.
Texas, in its December 11 response to the defendant states, stated "Defendant States do not seriously address grave issues that Texas raises, choosing to hide behind other court venues and decisions in which Texas could not participate and to mischaracterize both the relief that Texas seeks and the justification for that relief." In an interview, Paxton further argued that "the only place we can file is the Supreme Court, and we did what we did appropriately, so to call it 'seditious' is really ridiculous." In response to commentators who said the action was a Hail Mary, Paxton said, "Unless you throw the pass, you can't complete it."
Amici curiae respondents
Supporting plaintiff Texas Attorneys general of seventeen additional states filed a joint brief on December 9 supporting Texas.
On the same day, Trump filed a motion to intervene in his personal capacity, thereby attempting to join the case as a plaintiff. Trump's brief was filed by Chapman University School of Law professor John C. Eastman, who in August 2020 authored an article published in Newsweek questioning Kamala Harris's eligibility for the position of vice president. On social media, the president referred to the case as "the big one". Over 120 Republican members of the House of Representatives filed an amicus brief in support of the suit, including leader Kevin McCarthy and his deputy Steve Scalise. 106 members of the House initially signed on to the lawsuit in support of the plaintiff. 20 additional members of the House signed on to the lawsuit in support of the plaintiff before it was dismissed.
Later on December 10, attorneys general of six states that had already responded in an amicus brief, Arkansas, Utah, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi and South Carolina, petitioned to the Supreme Court to let them join Texas as a plaintiff in the case. This effort was led by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt.
Lynn Fitch, Mississippi Tim Fox, Montana Curtis Hill, Indiana Mike Hunter, Oklahoma Jeff Landry, Louisiana Steve Marshall, Alabama Ashley Moody, Florida Patrick Morrisey, West Virginia Doug Peterson, Nebraska Jason R. Ravnsborg, South Dakota Sean D. Reyes, Utah Leslie Rutledge, Arkansas Derek Schmidt, Kansas Eric Schmitt, Missouri Herbert H. Slatery III, Tennessee Wayne Stenehjem, North Dakota Alan Wilson, South Carolina
Ralph Abraham, LA-05 Robert Aderholt, AL-04 Rick Allen, GA-12 Jodey Arrington, TX-19 Brian Babin, TX-36 Jim Baird, IN-04 Jim Banks, IN-03 Jack Bergman, MI-01 Andy Biggs, AZ-05 Gus Bilirakis, FL-12 Dan Bishop, NC-09 Mike Bost, IL-12 Kevin Brady, TX-08 Mo Brooks, AL-05 Ken Buck, CO-04 Ted Budd, NC-13 Tim Burchett, TN-02 Michael C. Burgess, TX-26 Bradley Byrne, AL-01 Ken Calvert, CA-42 Buddy Carter, GA-01 Ben Cline, VA-06 Michael Cloud, TX-27 Doug Collins, GA-09 Mike Conaway, TX-11 Rick Crawford, AR-01 Dan Crenshaw, TX-02 Scott DesJarlais, TN-04 Mario Diaz-Balart, FL-25 Jeff Duncan, SC-03 Neal Dunn, FL-02 Tom Emmer, MN-06 Ron Estes, KS-04 Drew Ferguson, GA-03 Chuck Fleischmann, TN-03 Bill Flores, TX-17 Jeff Fortenberry, NE-01 Virginia Foxx, NC-05 Russ Fulcher, ID-01 Matt Gaetz, FL-01 Greg Gianforte, MT-AL Bob Gibbs, OH-07 Louie Gohmert, TX-01 Lance Gooden, TX-05 Sam Graves, MO-06 Mark Green, TN-07 Morgan Griffith, VA-09 Michael Guest, MS-03 Jim Hagedorn, MN-01 Andy Harris, MD-01 Vicky Hartzler, MO-04 Kevin Hern, OK-01 Jody Hice, GA-10 Clay Higgins, LA-03 Trey Hollingsworth, IN-09 Richard Hudson, NC-08 Bill Huizenga, MI-02 Bill Johnson, OH-06 Mike Johnson, LA-04 Jim Jordan, OH-04 John Joyce, PA-13 Fred Keller, PA-12 Mike Kelly, PA-16 Trent Kelly, MS-01 Steve King, IA-04 David Kustoff, TN-08 Darin LaHood, IL-18 Doug LaMalfa, CA-01 Doug Lamborn, CO-05 Robert E. Latta, OH-05 Debbie Lesko, AZ-08 Billy Long, MO-07 Barry Loudermilk, GA-11 Blaine Luetkemeyer, MO-03 Kenny Marchant, TX-24 Roger Marshall, KS-01 Kevin McCarthy, CA-23 Tom McClintock, CA-04 Cathy McMorris Rodgers, WA-05 Dan Meuser, PA-09 Carol Miller, WV-03 John Moolenaar, MI-04 Alex Mooney, WV-02 Markwayne Mullin, OK-02 Greg Murphy, NC-03 Dan Newhouse, WA-04 Ralph Norman, SC-05 Steven Palazzo, MS-04 Gary Palmer, AL-06 Greg Pence, IN-06 Scott Perry, PA-10 Bill Posey, FL-08 Guy Reschenthaler, PA-14 Tom Rice, SC-07 Mike Rogers, AL-03 John Rose, TN-06 David Rouzer, NC-07 John Rutherford, FL-04 Steve Scalise, LA-01 Austin Scott, GA-08 Mike Simpson, ID-02 Adrian Smith, NE-03 Jason T. Smith, MO-08 Ross Spano, FL-15 Pete Stauber, MN-08 Elise Stefanik, NY-21 Greg Steube, FL-17 Glenn Thompson, PA-15 Tom Tiffany, WI-07 Jeff Van Drew, NJ-02 William Timmons, SC-04 Ann Wagner, MO-02 Tim Walberg, MI-07 Mark Walker, NC-06 Jackie Walorski, IN-02 Michael Waltz, FL-06 Randy Weber, TX-14 Daniel Webster, FL-11 Brad Wenstrup, OH-02 Bruce Westerman, AR-04 Roger Williams, TX-25 Joe Wilson, SC-02 Rob Wittman, VA-01 Ron Wright, TX-06 Ted Yoho, FL-03 Lee Zeldin, NY-01
Supporting defendant states An amicus curiae brief on the side of the defendants was filed by a group of former Republican office holders and officials.
The defendant states responded on December 10, urging the Court to reject the case. Pennsylvania's reply called the suit a "seditious abuse of the judicial process". The states urged that the justices "send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated".