Texas v. Pennsylvania was a December 2020 Supreme Court case in which Texas asked the justices to invalidate the presidential election results in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The Court denied the request on December 11, 2020, in an order barely longer than a paragraph, holding that Texas lacked standing because one state has no judicially cognizable interest in how another state runs its elections.1Supreme Court of the United States. Order List 592 U.S. The case never reached the merits, but it drew support from 18 state attorneys general and 126 members of Congress before its swift dismissal, making it one of the most politically charged election disputes in modern history.
What Texas Asked the Court to Do
The relief Texas requested was extraordinary. It asked the Court to block the four defendant states from using their certified vote totals to appoint presidential electors. If granted, the order would have nullified the popular vote outcomes in all four. Texas proposed that the state legislatures in those states should then appoint new slates of electors directly, bypassing the results.
Texas also asked the Court to delay the Electoral College meeting, scheduled for December 14, 2020, to allow time for further investigation into alleged irregularities. Combined, the requests would have frozen the presidential transition and moved the choice of electors to four state legislatures. No prior Supreme Court case had granted anything close to this.
The Legal Arguments
The heart of Texas’s complaint was the Electors Clause in Article II, which says each state shall appoint presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”2Constitution Annotated. U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 Clause 2 Texas read that language to mean only state legislatures can set the rules for presidential elections. When a governor, secretary of state, or state court changed those rules, Texas argued, the resulting election was constitutionally invalid.
That reading is known as the “independent state legislature” theory. Texas claimed election officials and courts in the four defendant states had effectively rewritten their election laws by extending mail-in ballot deadlines, relaxing signature verification, and altering ballot-curing procedures. Because those changes came from executive actions or court orders rather than legislation, Texas argued the results were unconstitutional.3Office of the Attorney General of Texas. Texas v. Pennsylvania Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint
Texas also raised Fourteenth Amendment claims. On equal protection, the complaint alleged that counties within each defendant state applied inconsistent standards for processing ballots, with some voters allowed to fix defective ballots and others not. On due process, Texas argued that the absence of a single statewide standard for authenticating mail-in ballot signatures made the count unreliable. Both claims were pitched as independent grounds for relief, separate from the Electors Clause argument.
Why Texas Filed Directly at the Supreme Court
Texas bypassed the usual federal district courts and filed directly at the Supreme Court. Article III gives the Court “original jurisdiction” over cases where a state is a party, meaning it can act as a trial court rather than an appellate one.4Congress.gov. Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 – Supreme Court Jurisdiction By naming four other states as defendants, Texas framed the matter as a dispute between sovereigns and opened that constitutional pathway. It filed its motion for leave on December 7, 2020, and asked for expedited treatment given the approaching Electoral College deadline.5Supreme Court of the United States. Texas v. Pennsylvania Docket The Court resolved the case four days later.
Who Lined Up on Each Side
Eighteen state attorneys general filed amicus briefs supporting Texas, with Missouri leading a coalition of 17 states in a single filing.5Supreme Court of the United States. Texas v. Pennsylvania Docket Six states went further and moved to intervene as parties: Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Utah.6Office of the Attorney General. AG Paxton: Six States Join Texas in Lawsuit Defending the Security of the 2020 Election On Capitol Hill, 126 members of the U.S. House of Representatives filed their own amicus brief urging the Court to hear the case.7Supreme Court of the United States. Amicus Brief of 126 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives
The four defendant states opposed the motion vigorously, calling the suit an unprecedented attempt to disenfranchise millions of voters and arguing that Texas had no business dictating how they ran their own elections. Other states and bipartisan groups filed opposing amicus briefs, warning that letting one state challenge another’s election procedures would invite endless interstate litigation over contested elections.
How the Court Ruled
The Court disposed of the case on December 11, 2020, in an order that ran little more than a paragraph. The justices denied Texas’s motion for leave to file its complaint, finding that Texas “has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”1Supreme Court of the United States. Order List 592 U.S. The denial rested on lack of standing under Article III. All remaining motions, including the six states’ requests to intervene, were dismissed as moot.
Justices Alito and Thomas issued a brief statement disagreeing with the procedural outcome but not the result. In their view, the Court lacks discretion to refuse a bill of complaint in cases falling within original jurisdiction. They added a critical qualifier: “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.”1Supreme Court of the United States. Order List 592 U.S. Even the two most sympathetic justices would not have given Texas what it asked for.
The order said nothing about the Electors Clause, equal protection, due process, or the factual allegations. The standing determination made those questions irrelevant. That distinction matters: the ruling did not validate or reject Texas’s claims about how the defendant states ran their elections. It held only that Texas was not the right party to raise them.
What the Case Means Now
Texas v. Pennsylvania set no binding precedent on the merits of election challenges. It did establish a practical boundary. One state cannot use the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to police how another state administers its elections, and the standing barrier is high enough that no similar interstate challenge has been filed since.
The independent state legislature theory at the core of Texas’s complaint was rejected three years later. In Moore v. Harper, a 6–3 majority held that the Elections Clause “does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.” Chief Justice Roberts wrote that state legislatures remain subject to ordinary judicial review under their own state constitutions.8Supreme Court of the United States. Moore v. Harper
Congress also moved. The Electoral Count Reform Act, passed in late 2022, overhauled certification rules largely unchanged since 1887. It eliminates the “failed election” reading that some had argued would let state legislatures appoint electors after Election Day, requiring states to appoint electors on the designated Election Day with a narrow exception for extraordinary catastrophic events under laws enacted before the election.9Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 3 USC 5 – Certificate of Ascertainment of Appointment of Electors The Act also creates an expedited judicial review process available only to aggrieved presidential candidates challenging a state’s elector certification. Under that framework, a state like Texas would still lack the ability to challenge another state’s electors. Only the candidates themselves can bring those claims.