Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

Police barricades stand in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on December 11, 2020 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Stefani Reynolds/Getty Images)

Police barricades stand in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on December 11, 2020 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Stefani Reynolds/Getty Images)

'Exactly What the Country Needs Right Now': SCOTUS Rejects Texas Suit Challenging Election Results

"It's over over over over and 90% of GOP needs to recognize reality."

Jessica Corbett

Even the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court—which includes three justices appointed by President Donald Trump—is unwilling to take seriously the flurry of lawsuits filed by the president and his allies to challenge the November election results, as the nation's highest court made clear by rejecting another case late Friday.

"Any other outcome would have signaled the death of core principles that lie at the heart of American democracy."
—Kristen Clarke, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

The court's decision in the case brought by Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton—and backed by over 100 members of Congress—came after the justices on Tuesday unanimously denied an injunction request from a group of Republicans political figures in Pennsylvania, led by Congressman Mike Kelly.

Trump, his lawyers, and other political allies of the president have continued to circulate lies about mass voter fraud—for which even U.S. Attorney General William Barr, a Trump appointee, says there is no evidence—and file lawsuits that have prompted calls for investigations and sanctions targeting any attorneys involved.

Paxton, who was joined by several other Republican attorneys general for the case, had asked the Supreme Court to block four key battleground states that Biden won—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—from voting in the Electoral College. The court determined (pdf) that Texas lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution and had not "demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections."

Although legal experts figured that the effort had no chance of succeeding, the high court's decision was still celebrated by those who have framed the recent behavior by the president and some of his supporters at blatant attacks on U.S. democracy.

Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, tweeted Friday that the court's rejection of the case "is exactly what the country needs right now—finality, resolution, and closure."

"This concept of one state trying to challenge the election systems of other states is fully at odds with our democratic process," Clarke said in a statement. "The highest court in the land rightfully put an end to a lawsuit that constituted a desperate attempt to discount ballots cast by millions of American voters. Any other outcome would have signaled the death of core principles that lie at the heart of American democracy."

"This sends a strong signal that it's time for President Trump and his allies to shut down remaining cases clogging the courts," she added. Journalist Ari Berman, who has written extensively about voting rights, concurred:

Democratic Attorneys General Association co-chairs Maura Healey of Massachusetts and Aaron Ford of Nevada released a joint statement Friday applauding the court for handing another defeat to Trump and his allies "in their continued effort to overturn the will of the American people."

"The court's decision is an important reminder that we are a nation of laws—and in America, our laws are designed to protect the will of the people," they said. "It's long past time our leaders respect the will of the American voter and move forward together to confront the challenges that lie ahead for our families and communities."


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.

Arctic Warming Nearly Four Times Faster Than Earth as a Whole, Study Finds

"Scientific data keeps showing that the situation is more urgent than we had previously thought."

Julia Conley ·


Watchdogs Say FTC Must Foster Internet 'Free from Unwanted Surveillance'

Privacy advocates want the agency to safeguard "personal data from misuse by big companies like Alphabet, Amazon, and Meta, as well as smaller but no less nefarious data brokers."

Kenny Stancil ·


WTO Threats Against US Electric Vehicle Tax Credit Prompt Calls for 'Climate Peace Clause'

"It's time to end this circular firing squad where countries threaten and, if successful, weaken or repeal one another's climate measures through trade and investment agreements."

Jake Johnson ·


In Raid of Trump Home, FBI Was Seeking Classified Nuclear Weapons Documents

"The criminal who stole top secret nuclear documents is the same one who had absolute authority to order a nuclear attack at any time."

Jake Johnson ·


Docs Show DHS Watchdog Delayed Telling Congress About Deleted Secret Service Texts

The Project on Government Oversight says the records reveal a pattern of Inspector General Joseph Cuffari "rejecting proposals to inform Congress about the Secret Service's resistance to oversight."

Jessica Corbett ·

Common Dreams Logo