Dec 11 2020

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

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. 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.

Reply in support of motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay from plaintiff Texas filed.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163498/20201211111125165_TX-v-State-MPI-Reply-2020-12-11.pdf

>>11993972

From the way it reads, that is Texas' response to:

>>11993955

==E. Neither laches nor mootness bar

injunctive relief………………………………………. 9==

E. Neither laches nor mootness bar

injunctive relief.

Texas’s action is timely. Under Article III ripeness

and standing requirements, Texas could not sue until

after the election and, arguably, even after Defendant

States certified their obviously flawed election results.

Whereas Defendant States had months to plan, Texas

had less than four weeks to detect violations, find

witnesses willing to testify—notwithstanding

threats—and develop evidence and build a case.

Against Texas’s massive effort in minimal time,

Pennsylvania cites Benisek v. Lamone—where the

plaintiff waited “six years, and three general

elections”—for the proposition that a “party

requesting a preliminary injunction must generally

show reasonable diligence.” 138 S.Ct. 1942, 1944

(2018). Post-election laches are factually preposterous

given Texas’s diligence and pre-election laches are

legally barred given Texas’s lack of a ripe claim.

This action would be moot only if it were

“impossible for a court to grant” relief. Knox v. SEIU,

Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 307 (2012). The electors

have not yet voted, and the statutory deadlines may

be amended or stayed. Indeed, Congress did so for a

similarly flawed election in 1876-77. See Ch. 37, 19

Stat. 227 (1877). This action is not moot.