Tag: U.S. Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court made news on its first day of the new session, deciding it will not take a case to restore a lawsuit from Pennsylvania Republicans that challenged executive actions expanding voting access.

The lawsuit, filed by 27 state legislators, sought to revive the independent state legislature (ISL) theory, which posits the U.S. Constitution affords state legislatures exclusive authority to regulate federal elections. It challenged a 2021 executive order by President Joe Biden increasing access to voting through several measures and an edict by Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro to enact automatic voter registration statewide.

Under the legislators’ reasoning, Biden, Shapiro and other state and federal defendants “usurped the authority of Pennsylvania legislators … by changing Pennsylvania election laws via Executive Orders” and “nullifying” the votes of individual legislators in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Elections and Electors Clauses.

After a district court threw out the case, the state legislators asked the justices to bypass a federal appeals court and determine ahead of the 2024 presidential election whether they have standing to bring the challenge.

Republican secretaries of state, GOP members of the U.S. House of Representatives as well as other right-wing entities — including the Claremont Institute — all submitted “friend of the court” briefs urging the justices to take up the case.

The justices on Monday declined to do so.

The Pennsylvania state legislators also cite a second constitutional provision, the Electors Clause, which says states, in a manner directed by their legislatures, appoint electors to certify federal elections.

But the Supreme Court already declined to endorse the theory in 2023, when the justices ruled 6-3 against a bid to give state legislatures sweeping authority in drawing congressional maps and regulating federal elections.

“The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion in Moore v. Harper.

The Pennsylvania legislators argued that the high court still needed to determine “individual state legislator standing,” noting that 27 individual legislators banded together to “guard their duty to determine the manner of federal elections.”

Supreme Court Order

23-1162 KEEFER, DAWN, ET AL. V. BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
The motion of Members Michigan Fair Elections, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is denied. The motion of Secretaries of State of West Virginia, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is denied. The motion of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is denied. The motion of PA Fair Elections for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is denied. The motion of Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is denied. The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied.

 

The United States Supreme Court made news on its first day of the new session, deciding it will not take a case to restore a lawsuit from Pennsylvania Republicans that challenged executive actions expanding voting access.

The lawsuit, filed by 27 state legislators, sought to revive the independent state legislature (ISL) theory, which posits the U.S. Constitution affords state legislatures exclusive authority to regulate federal elections. It challenged a 2021 executive order by President Joe Biden increasing access to voting through several measures and an edict by Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro to enact automatic voter registration statewide.

Under the legislators’ reasoning, Biden, Shapiro and other state and federal defendants “usurped the authority of Pennsylvania legislators … by changing Pennsylvania election laws via Executive Orders” and “nullifying” the votes of individual legislators in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Elections and Electors Clauses.

After a district court threw out the case, the state legislators asked the justices to bypass a federal appeals court and determine ahead of the 2024 presidential election whether they have standing to bring the challenge.

Republican secretaries of state, GOP members of the U.S. House of Representatives as well as other right-wing entities — including the Claremont Institute — all submitted “friend of the court” briefs urging the justices to take up the case.

The justices on Monday declined to do so.

The Pennsylvania state legislators also cite a second constitutional provision, the Electors Clause, which says states, in a manner directed by their legislatures, appoint electors to certify federal elections.

But the Supreme Court already declined to endorse the theory in 2023, when the justices ruled 6-3 against a bid to give state legislatures sweeping authority in drawing congressional maps and regulating federal elections.

“The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion in Moore v. Harper.

The Pennsylvania legislators argued that the high court still needed to determine “individual state legislator standing,” noting that 27 individual legislators banded together to “guard their duty to determine the manner of federal elections.”

Supreme Court Order

23-1162 KEEFER, DAWN, ET AL. V. BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
The motion of Members Michigan Fair Elections, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is denied. The motion of Secretaries of State of West Virginia, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is denied. The motion of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is denied. The motion of PA Fair Elections for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is denied. The motion of Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is denied. The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied.

 

Email:

The United States Supreme Court made news on its first day of the new session, deciding it will not take a case to restore a lawsuit from Pennsylvania Republicans that challenged executive actions expanding voting access.

The lawsuit, filed by 27 state legislators, sought to revive the independent state legislature (ISL) theory, which posits the U.S. Constitution affords state legislatures exclusive authority to regulate federal elections. It challenged a 2021 executive order by President Joe Biden increasing access to voting through several measures and an edict by Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro to enact automatic voter registration statewide.

Under the legislators’ reasoning, Biden, Shapiro and other state and federal defendants “usurped the authority of Pennsylvania legislators … by changing Pennsylvania election laws via Executive Orders” and “nullifying” the votes of individual legislators in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Elections and Electors Clauses.

After a district court threw out the case, the state legislators asked the justices to bypass a federal appeals court and determine ahead of the 2024 presidential election whether they have standing to bring the challenge.

Republican secretaries of state, GOP members of the U.S. House of Representatives as well as other right-wing entities — including the Claremont Institute — all submitted “friend of the court” briefs urging the justices to take up the case.

The justices on Monday declined to do so.

The Pennsylvania state legislators also cite a second constitutional provision, the Electors Clause, which says states, in a manner directed by their legislatures, appoint electors to certify federal elections.

But the Supreme Court already declined to endorse the theory in 2023, when the justices ruled 6-3 against a bid to give state legislatures sweeping authority in drawing congressional maps and regulating federal elections.

“The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion in Moore v. Harper.

The Pennsylvania legislators argued that the high court still needed to determine “individual state legislator standing,” noting that 27 individual legislators banded together to “guard their duty to determine the manner of federal elections.”

Supreme Court Order

23-1162 KEEFER, DAWN, ET AL. V. BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
The motion of Members Michigan Fair Elections, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is denied. The motion of Secretaries of State of West Virginia, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is denied. The motion of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is denied. The motion of PA Fair Elections for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is denied. The motion of Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is denied. The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied.

 

The United States Supreme Court made news on its first day of the new session, deciding it will not take a case to restore a lawsuit from Pennsylvania Republicans that challenged executive actions expanding voting access.

The lawsuit, filed by 27 state legislators, sought to revive the independent state legislature (ISL) theory, which posits the U.S. Constitution affords state legislatures exclusive authority to regulate federal elections. It challenged a 2021 executive order by President Joe Biden increasing access to voting through several measures and an edict by Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro to enact automatic voter registration statewide.

Under the legislators’ reasoning, Biden, Shapiro and other state and federal defendants “usurped the authority of Pennsylvania legislators … by changing Pennsylvania election laws via Executive Orders” and “nullifying” the votes of individual legislators in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Elections and Electors Clauses.

After a district court threw out the case, the state legislators asked the justices to bypass a federal appeals court and determine ahead of the 2024 presidential election whether they have standing to bring the challenge.

Republican secretaries of state, GOP members of the U.S. House of Representatives as well as other right-wing entities — including the Claremont Institute — all submitted “friend of the court” briefs urging the justices to take up the case.

The justices on Monday declined to do so.

The Pennsylvania state legislators also cite a second constitutional provision, the Electors Clause, which says states, in a manner directed by their legislatures, appoint electors to certify federal elections.

But the Supreme Court already declined to endorse the theory in 2023, when the justices ruled 6-3 against a bid to give state legislatures sweeping authority in drawing congressional maps and regulating federal elections.

“The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion in Moore v. Harper.

The Pennsylvania legislators argued that the high court still needed to determine “individual state legislator standing,” noting that 27 individual legislators banded together to “guard their duty to determine the manner of federal elections.”

Supreme Court Order

23-1162 KEEFER, DAWN, ET AL. V. BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
The motion of Members Michigan Fair Elections, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is denied. The motion of Secretaries of State of West Virginia, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is denied. The motion of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is denied. The motion of PA Fair Elections for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is denied. The motion of Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is denied. The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied.

 

  • Will tonight's U.S. Senate debate affect your decision?


    • No. I've already decided on how to cast my vote. (81%)
    • Yes. Anxious to hear from both candidates (19%)

    Total Voters: 27

    Loading ... Loading ...

This-Week-in-PA-PoliticsPa-Ad

Continue to Browser

PoliticsPA

To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen