This is THE ONE: The Case We’ve Been Waiting For

American Center for Law and Justice 

Rumble — Texas is suing Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
On today’s Jay Sekulow Live, we discussed the breaking news that state of Texas is suing four battleground states directly at the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a case of original jurisdiction at the high Court and could be outcome determinative on the election.

Filed by the state of Texas and its attorney general, this lawsuit is focusing on three main constitutional claims. Texas is saying that Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin in how they administered their elections violated the Elector’s Clause because it’s the state legislatures that have to make rules on how elections should be conducted and to implement changes if necessary. There’s an Equal Protection claim, as well as a Due Process claim.

The prayer for relief in the lawsuit is that the states cannot seat the electors and basically that the legislatures should, in each of these states, appoint new electors. So this has been filed at the U.S. Supreme Court overnight or morning by the state of Texas against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. What is key is this case could be outcome determinative. If the U.S. Supreme Court were to agree with Texas, it could ultimately be outcome determinative if the state legislatures had to pick new electors.

My dad, Jay Sekulow, discussed the significance of this case:
“What is at stake here, and this is why I think out of all the cases this is the most significant – to be clear, there’s no doubt about it – this is the most significant of the cases that has been filed. It’s the most significant because it is completely outcome determinative. What does that mean? It means that if the Court were to rule in favor of Texas, those four states, the states named in the complaint, would in in fact have their state legislatures determine the outcome. They would pick the electors.

This is a lawsuit, of course, against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. It is original jurisdiction which means it doesn’t start at the district court level. It starts at the Supreme Court of the United States where it was lodged yesterday evening very, very late; actually by the time it was lodged, probably this morning. It’s a very significant piece of litigation, in my mind, this is the one.”

This comes on the day that electors are being seated and then next week on December 14th, they will vote. So this all has to happen very quickly. This is extremely significant because the state of Texas has the jurisdiction to go right to U.S. Supreme Court, as it is a case or original jurisdiction between two or more states under the Constitution.

This is the most important lawsuit filed thus far during the legal phase of the presidential election. We’ll continue to keep you updated as it develops. At the ACLJ, we have been fighting to defend the integrity of the election and the Constitution, and if the Supreme Court takes up this case, we will look to file our own amicus brief along with our members.
The full broadcast is complete with much more analysis of this newly filed Texas lawsuit and how it may determine the outcome of the presidential election. The Court could issue a briefing schedule or reject the case at any moment.

Trump Says He Will Intervene in Texas’ SCOTUS Election Case



President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he and/or members of his legal team would join, as intervenors, the lawsuit brought by Texas’ Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton to the U.S. Supreme Court against four battleground states.

“We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!” Trump said in a tweet.

An intervention, in legal terms, is a procedure that lets a nonparty join ongoing litigation if the case affects the rights of that party. The court considering an application to intervene, in this case the U.S. Supreme Court, has the discretion to allow or deny such a request.

In the lawsuit, Texas is alleging that Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin introduced last-minute unconstitutional changes to election laws, treated voters unequally, and triggered significant voting irregularities by relaxing ballot-integrity measures. The lawsuit is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to declare that the four battleground states conducted the 2020 election in violation of the Constitution.

The suit, filed on Dec. 7 and docketed the next day, is also seeking to prohibit the count of the Electoral College votes cast by the four states. For the defendant states that have already appointed electors, it asks the court to direct the state legislatures to appoint new electors in line with the Constitution.

Trump’s remarks about joining the suit as an intervenor came after several states expressed their support for the lawsuit. Attorneys general for Arkansas, Alabama, Missouri, and Louisiana have issued statements in support of Paxton’s motion.

On Tuesday, the president wondered if lawmakers or judges have the courage to help him challenge election results in key battleground states.

“Let’s see whether or not somebody has the courage—whether it’s a legislator or legislatures, or whether it’s a justice of the Supreme Court or a number of justices of the Supreme Court. Let’s see if they have the courage to do what everybody in this country knows is right,” Trump told a press conference in Washington during a summit on COVID-19 vaccines.

In the complaint to the Supreme Court, Paxton argues that the four battleground states had acted in a way that violated their own election laws and thereby breached the Constitution through enacting and implementing new measures, rules, and procedures right before the Nov. 3 election.

In some instances, the defendant states enacted such measures through the use of so-called friendly lawsuits, in which the plaintiff and the defendant collude to procure a court order, the lawsuit alleges. In other instances, a variety of state election officials allegedly exceeded their authority to promulgate rules and procedures that should have been enacted by each state’s legislature, as required by the Constitution’s Elections and Electors clause.

“The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution. By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections,” Paxton said in a statement.

Attorneys general from the defendant states have disputed the allegations in the lawsuit.

Paxton argued that the actions he outlined in his complaint “constitute non-legislative changes to State election law by executive-branch State election officials, or by judicial officials” and, as such, votes cast by Electoral College electors pursuant to these actions should not be considered constitutionally valid.

Texas is also asking the Supreme Court (pdf) to grant a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order to block the four states from taking action to certify their election results or to prevent the state’s presidential electors from taking any official action. The presidential electors are scheduled to meet on Dec. 14.

The court has ordered the defendant states to respond to Texas’s motions by 3 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 10.

Janita Kan contributed to this report.