The Texas case got rejected on standing, all that means is a suit that does have standing needs to make it to SCOTUS. I know people think of standing as a technicality but it's incredibly important and SCOTUS can't make an exception "this one time" because that sets precedent.
So what remedy can a state seek when another state's unconstitutional actions negatively affect their own legal processes? This is not only directly a horrible decision but it likely sets a terrible precedent.
Texas received no injury from whatever the four defendant states did. Generalized grievances like "but the president is not going to be the one I wanted" don't count, if that counted literally every Republican in the country would have standing to sue. That's simply not how standing works.
Trump, the state legislatures in those four states, and possibly the Republican electors have standing. Texas doesn't.
The Texas case got rejected on standing, all that means is a suit that does have standing needs to make it to SCOTUS. I know people think of standing as a technicality but it's incredibly important and SCOTUS can't make an exception "this one time" because that sets precedent.
So what remedy can a state seek when another state's unconstitutional actions negatively affect their own legal processes? This is not only directly a horrible decision but it likely sets a terrible precedent.
Texas received no injury from whatever the four defendant states did. Generalized grievances like "but the president is not going to be the one I wanted" don't count, if that counted literally every Republican in the country would have standing to sue. That's simply not how standing works.
Trump, the state legislatures in those four states, and possibly the Republican electors have standing. Texas doesn't.