What I don't understand is why Texas can't demonstrate injury. Each state, via its electors, affects the outcome of the election, and each state would have a vested interest that all other states run fair elections. If a candidate is elected; because some states ran unfair elections, how does that not disenfranchise the whole of the electorate? The election results will be skewed by the "faithless" states for lack of a better term. How can each state be held accountable for its handling of an election?
Wow, I can't believe how rational and patient you are with all your posters even in long posts. You have time to make great videos and reply to all the comments it seems! In addition to having a great reference for a heap of legal cases. I wish you best in keeping all this up!
BaSam, thanks for your kind words. The channel's goal is educational, and was initially created for students studying US law who do not speak English as a first language - - I'm happy that the audience has expanded. Please note that the videos will not be much help on actual legal cases but I hope the videos are useful introductions to different topics. If any particular topics interest you, please let me know.
Hello, thank you for making this video breaking it down. I'm not a legal studies student but i heard an interesting argument about this case and it would be great to get some insight. The argument i heard was that since Pennsylvania and 3 other states had executives and judges change the state laws regarding the election process instead of their state legislature, it wasnt constitutionally sound. If texas is in a participant in a 50 state election, and the actions of these states change the rules and in relation lessen the representative value of their votes worth, then they can claim standing in Texas v. Pennsylvania in that the 4 states did not follow proper procedure in changing their election rules. I would welcome some insight in this from the channel or anyone in the comments. Thank you if you read this message.
It was a very succinct and helpful explanation. I only wish you'd chosen not to inflict that unflattering photo of Mayor Giuliani on your viewers. It didn't add anything to the point you're making. Besides being a little unpleasant to look at it comes of as a pointlessly mean choice when many other images are as iconic of the various state-level suits. Otherwise, thanks for a solid exposition on a topic about which many have been curious - gave it the like despite the ugly.
This is a very good question JH. Yes, in the United States the national government can sue a state. By way of example, the United States government sued California and other states because these states prohibited private detention facilities (privately run prisons). Among other things, the US government argued that a state cannot pass a law that would regulate federal prisoners because that power exclusively belongs to the national government. You can see a copy of the Complaint here: www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1247541/download Let me know if you have any other thoughts or questions on this.
Hey there. Voters and politicians from Pennsylvania would almost certainly have standing. In fact, they did sue, however, the lawsuit failed as untimely. www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7862/file-10781.pdf?cb=1f7217 As to why the lawsuit would likely have failed even if it were timely, here is the concurring opinion: www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7862/file-10782.pdf?cb=1c64e8
@@USLawEssentials So, there was no injury to complain about yet. And then the other suit failed because it was too late. So, how does this equal justice?
Thanks for the explanation. I have a question that might sound odd but can you please explain What does the term “injury” mean in these paragraphs? Does it mean a physical injury as in bodily harm? .. I assuming they would need the whole state of Texas expressing their feelings were hurt by how other states conducted their elections and that could be considered and injury ..lol ..
Hi JArias. No, it does not require bodily harm. But it requires an injury of some sort. For example, let's say you are a musician and suddenly your town announces that musicians cannot play music in public. Now, you've been harmed by a law that prevents you from expressing yourself through music and performing your chosen career. You would have standing as a musician to object to this law. Does that make sense?
I can see how the Supreme Court could reject the TX v PA lawsuit for lack of standing if the complaint was in regards to a normal, local election. Local and statewide elections in one state have no bearing and can cause no injury to another state. However, this lawsuit is in reference to a Presidential election. If one state handles its election process inappropriately allowing one Presidential candidate to receive votes in a potentially unlawful manner and ultimately awarding that states electoral votes to that one candidate, this can potentially render the electoral votes of other states as ineffectual thereby causing injury to those states. I believe the Supreme Court was obligated to hear the case.
Can any of you ( word Smithers) lawyers recite any case law, supreme court ruling, Pryor to 1900, where “standing” was invoked, considered, used, cited, etc? Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
a. Dimpfel v Ohio (1884), Walker v Powers (1881), Sheirburn v De Cordova (1860). b. I think there is a helpful explanation of the discussion you are trying to understand here: repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1714&context=mlr Hope this is useful.
1L here and got done with my midterm exams last week. I guess I would side with Alito and Thomas saying that the court should hear the case, but not automatically saying it has merits. I feel like if I was an attorney (and using my background in public policy & administration from undergrad) election outcomes can benefit but also hurt states. Particularly with Texas, a sizable chunk of the Texas economy is based on oil and natural gas. I am from Colorado originally and the fracking/gas energy is a big jobs market and tax revenue source. However, Biden's energy policy and drive would impact those economic sectors. So I wonder if Texas could have made that as an argument for why it suffered an injury. The legal hurdle I see in that argument is that the opposing side can counter argue that well that might be an injury, but it hasn't necessarily happened... yet. Therefore, you can't really tie that injury to how Pennsylvania conducted its elections. I guess would that argument work in court? I take ConLaw next year. I've taken ConLaw in undergrad before but it was a little flavor that dealt with criminal rights rather than subjects like this.
Hi A Barn. Thanks for your comment. I understand that you will be taking ConLaw next year but I have a suggestion. Why not write an article about the Alito Thomas position that SCOTUS was obligated under Article III to allow Texas to initiate its case ? I guarantee that some profs will be addressing this topic but I don't see any reason why you couldn't consult with a ConLaw prof at your law school and delve into this topic. It's academic and although it might not have much popular appeal would certainly be publishable and timely. I think your analysis of the Texas injury is not accurate for purposes of this case but I follow your reasoning. Anyway, thanks for watching and lmk whether you try to write that article. Stay in touch.
@@USLawEssentials Hello there, I have a question regarding the Texas v PA case. I have no law experience, but took the time to look at the PA constitution, specifically article 7. Why is it argued that the vote must occur in person, when section 4 states "or by other such method as prescribed by law"? Doesn't Act 77 meet the criteria of "other such method"? It seemed to me upon reading that the way in which the vote is pretty open, provided the state legislature has adopted some lawful method. Is this just a case of people interpreting the concept of "the vote" to mean only in person when it is not directly stated? Or am i missing something completely obvious? Thank you.
Sorry, I did not see your question until today. The issue was whether the procedure followed by PA to allow people to vote by mail in light of the pandemic was lawful or not ....i.e, was that "prescribed by law". There was an effort to argue that the change was not lawful. Those who opposed the change argued that other steps should have been followed before allowing people to vote by mail. Republicans figured correctly that voting by mail would raise the number of voters and would increase Biden's chance of winning. When that challenge failed they resorted to other arguments, and eventually violence, to try and put their preferred candidate back in office.
very dishonorable and shameful on the part of the supreme court. Texas did have standing because the election of a president is a collective endeavour. What Pennsylvania did unlawfully had an impact in Texas. This was a cowardly political decision and no amount of mental gymnastics can justify what they did.
Thanks for your question, JL. A party that can allege an injury. For example, if a voter PA were to allege that his mail-in vote was rejected because he supported the reelection of Trump while a similar vote were cast by a Biden voter then he should have standing.
GJ. Thanks for sharing. I understand you believe that the voting laws in certain states were unconstitutional. However, courts that have addressed this issue did not reach the conclusion you would have preferred. You may wish to read those decisions (including decisions by judges who probably share at least some of your political views) After you read the decisions you can see whether you think they are well-reasoned or not. If you think their reasoning is flawed, feel free to share your opinion as to why you think the wrong conclusion was reached. You may wish to refer to the specific language in the decisions which you think is wrong and explain your perspective. I invited others to do so but they responded emotionally and the conversation ended.Also, in the video above, I attempted to summarize a very brief SCOTUS decision and I believe my summary was accurate. If you think the summary was inaccurate I welcome you to share your opinion.
@@USLawEssentials so you mean no injury to the other states when a state changes its election rules to favor a candidate? which one should be followed the constitution or the state law?
Uld, to which court decision are you referring? Are you referring to the Supreme Court decision referred to in the video? The state court decisions? The lower federal court decisions?
@@USLawEssentials im talking about the law in general... the example you stated is more on a community level... while i think the texas case is more on the state level thats why it should have been heard by the Supreme Court. All states i think have a standing on this since this is an election and the outcome will have effects on the other states and not only on the swing states. this will only prove that corruption/bias exist on every branch of government... Trump is not the cause of the American Divide.. its those people who cant accept him winning the election.
Hi DSM. Plaintiffs with standing who claim that state actors violated their Constitutional rights may sue. In fact, plaintiffs sued in many courts over the past several months alleging that the most recent elections violated their Constitutional rights. You can read the decisions addressing their complaints because they are publicly available. SCOTUS did not take this particular case based on Article III of the Constitution.
But isn't the Constitution also basically a contract between states to follow certain laws as part of the union? If one state goes against what's written in the Constitution, is that not the same as a breach of contract? If so, then Texas, having played by the rules so to speak abiding by that contract, absolutely is affected by another state running an unconstitutional election in chosing the President, especially when multiple states ran unconstitutional elections, I think SCOTUS saying Texas doesn't have standing is a weak cowardly legal excuse at best
Just to add, the electors clause of the Constitution I believe it is, describes how elections are to be run, it also says that if a state wants to change the states election laws, it has to go thru the legislature of the state to amend the state Constitution, then be put forward for a vote for the people to vote on, these states in contest changed state election laws either by executive changes or judicial changes, neither are a legitimate way of changing the election laws, hence they violated the Constitution, aka breaking federal law, so SCOTUS had no legitimate reason to throw out the case, political hacks at best who have violated their constitutional duties plain and simple, me as well as many others have lost all respect for SCOTUS
I'm also not a lawyer, so I wouldn't expect myself to be extremely persuasive in a legal argument, if I were to study a little more I could probably make a more persuasive argument, but this is what I've come up with from the research I have done, and as you know, legal research can take a LOT of time, of which isn't fruitful for me not being in a legal profession, but I try to learn as much as I can to be informed
This is tough. Cause I see injury. Keystone pipeline. Higher taxes. Higher gas. I guess these don’t count cause you might not be able to pinpoint the cause of these losses but they are a result of Biden’s changes.
Thanks for commenting. No, those are not injuries. That is just disagreement on a policy after a democratic election. For example, some voters in the US have historically been upset by emancipation of slaves, health care, environmental policy, foreign policy, etc. but those are not injuries. In a democracy, people who oppose policies offer their ideas and run on those ideas. If the majority disagrees that is not an injury.
@@USLawEssentials thanks so much for fast response you indeed are great in response to what others have said. I understand. But not all the way cause sometimes policies are harmful and do cause injury. But I guess the arguments would be injury for who cause in most cases someone is benefiting. But it just seems that when if a president did truly cheat that is absolute and MAJOR harm to all the people.
@@USLawEssentials also it’s probably just perspective and I’m not really advising the injury ruling I understand it. Just from a perspective I have from the understanding I have gained if that it’s massive injury but maybe not from a legal perspective. Good stuff thanks
Thanks for being informative instead of political.
Thanks, stay rational.
What I don't understand is why Texas can't demonstrate injury. Each state, via its electors, affects the outcome of the election, and each state would have a vested interest that all other states run fair elections. If a candidate is elected; because some states ran unfair elections, how does that not disenfranchise the whole of the electorate? The election results will be skewed by the "faithless" states for lack of a better term. How can each state be held accountable for its handling of an election?
Wow, I can't believe how rational and patient you are with all your posters even in long posts. You have time to make great videos and reply to all the comments it seems! In addition to having a great reference for a heap of legal cases. I wish you best in keeping all this up!
BaSam, thanks for your kind words. The channel's goal is educational, and was initially created for students studying US law who do not speak English as a first language - - I'm happy that the audience has expanded. Please note that the videos will not be much help on actual legal cases but I hope the videos are useful introductions to different topics. If any particular topics interest you, please let me know.
Very helpful - thanks! Appreciate how you break down complex topics into simple terms.
Hello, thank you for making this video breaking it down. I'm not a legal studies student but i heard an interesting argument about this case and it would be great to get some insight.
The argument i heard was that since Pennsylvania and 3 other states had executives and judges change the state laws regarding the election process instead of their state legislature, it wasnt constitutionally sound.
If texas is in a participant in a 50 state election, and the actions of these states change the rules and in relation lessen the representative value of their votes worth, then they can claim standing in Texas v. Pennsylvania in that the 4 states did not follow proper procedure in changing their election rules.
I would welcome some insight in this from the channel or anyone in the comments. Thank you if you read this message.
thank you for sharing👍
So basically the SC said mind your business Texas. Stay in your lane.
It was a very succinct and helpful explanation. I only wish you'd chosen not to inflict that unflattering photo of Mayor Giuliani on your viewers. It didn't add anything to the point you're making. Besides being a little unpleasant to look at it comes of as a pointlessly mean choice when many other images are as iconic of the various state-level suits. Otherwise, thanks for a solid exposition on a topic about which many have been curious - gave it the like despite the ugly.
Trevor, that's a good point and I should have thought better of it. There is a blur feature on YT so I blurred out the unflattering photo. Thanks.
Can Trump Administration, in the name of United States, sue an individual state?
This is a very good question JH. Yes, in the United States the national government can sue a state. By way of example, the United States government sued California and other states because these states prohibited private detention facilities (privately run prisons). Among other things, the US government argued that a state cannot pass a law that would regulate federal prisoners because that power exclusively belongs to the national government. You can see a copy of the Complaint here: www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1247541/download
Let me know if you have any other thoughts or questions on this.
So who would have standing?
Hypothetically how would you bring this to count?
Hey there. Voters and politicians from Pennsylvania would almost certainly have standing. In fact, they did sue, however, the lawsuit failed as untimely. www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7862/file-10781.pdf?cb=1f7217
As to why the lawsuit would likely have failed even if it were timely, here is the concurring opinion: www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7862/file-10782.pdf?cb=1c64e8
@@USLawEssentials So, there was no injury to complain about yet. And then the other suit failed because it was too late. So, how does this equal justice?
Hi Muddy, the case was not rejected on grounds that it was brought to the Supreme Court too early.
@@USLawEssentials Then how was there no injury?
Thanks for the explanation. I have a question that might sound odd but can you please explain What does the term “injury” mean in these paragraphs? Does it mean a physical injury as in bodily harm? .. I assuming they would need the whole state of Texas expressing their feelings were hurt by how other states conducted their elections and that could be considered and injury ..lol ..
Hi JArias. No, it does not require bodily harm. But it requires an injury of some sort. For example, let's say you are a musician and suddenly your town announces that musicians cannot play music in public. Now, you've been harmed by a law that prevents you from expressing yourself through music and performing your chosen career. You would have standing as a musician to object to this law. Does that make sense?
@@USLawEssentials yes it does, so that TX case definitely does not have standing IMO. Thank you.
I can see how the Supreme Court could reject the TX v PA lawsuit for lack of standing if the complaint was in regards to a normal, local election. Local and statewide elections in one state have no bearing and can cause no injury to another state. However, this lawsuit is in reference to a Presidential election. If one state handles its election process inappropriately allowing one Presidential candidate to receive votes in a potentially unlawful manner and ultimately awarding that states electoral votes to that one candidate, this can potentially render the electoral votes of other states as ineffectual thereby causing injury to those states. I believe the Supreme Court was obligated to hear the case.
Thanks for sharing, Barry.
You and 70+ million others. No one is giving a satisfactory explanation either, least of all the two line dismissal from scotus.
@@ironymatt
There is no answer or remedy that would satisfy you, except allowing Trump to remain president.
@@anticorncob6 ever read about the Philadelphia Senate race of 1992? Or for recent sake, Domenick Demuro
Open border is an injury.
Can any of you ( word Smithers) lawyers recite any case law, supreme court ruling, Pryor to 1900, where “standing” was invoked, considered, used, cited, etc?
Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
a. Dimpfel v Ohio (1884), Walker v Powers (1881), Sheirburn v De Cordova (1860).
b. I think there is a helpful explanation of the discussion you are trying to understand here: repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1714&context=mlr
Hope this is useful.
1L here and got done with my midterm exams last week. I guess I would side with Alito and Thomas saying that the court should hear the case, but not automatically saying it has merits. I feel like if I was an attorney (and using my background in public policy & administration from undergrad) election outcomes can benefit but also hurt states. Particularly with Texas, a sizable chunk of the Texas economy is based on oil and natural gas. I am from Colorado originally and the fracking/gas energy is a big jobs market and tax revenue source. However, Biden's energy policy and drive would impact those economic sectors. So I wonder if Texas could have made that as an argument for why it suffered an injury.
The legal hurdle I see in that argument is that the opposing side can counter argue that well that might be an injury, but it hasn't necessarily happened... yet. Therefore, you can't really tie that injury to how Pennsylvania conducted its elections.
I guess would that argument work in court? I take ConLaw next year. I've taken ConLaw in undergrad before but it was a little flavor that dealt with criminal rights rather than subjects like this.
Hi A Barn. Thanks for your comment. I understand that you will be taking ConLaw next year but I have a suggestion. Why not write an article about the Alito Thomas position that SCOTUS was obligated under Article III to allow Texas to initiate its case ? I guarantee that some profs will be addressing this topic but I don't see any reason why you couldn't consult with a ConLaw prof at your law school and delve into this topic. It's academic and although it might not have much popular appeal would certainly be publishable and timely. I think your analysis of the Texas injury is not accurate for purposes of this case but I follow your reasoning. Anyway, thanks for watching and lmk whether you try to write that article. Stay in touch.
@@USLawEssentials Hello there, I have a question regarding the Texas v PA case. I have no law experience, but took the time to look at the PA constitution, specifically article 7. Why is it argued that the vote must occur in person, when section 4 states "or by other such method as prescribed by law"? Doesn't Act 77 meet the criteria of "other such method"? It seemed to me upon reading that the way in which the vote is pretty open, provided the state legislature has adopted some lawful method. Is this just a case of people interpreting the concept of "the vote" to mean only in person when it is not directly stated? Or am i missing something completely obvious? Thank you.
Sorry, I did not see your question until today. The issue was whether the procedure followed by PA to allow people to vote by mail in light of the pandemic was lawful or not ....i.e, was that "prescribed by law". There was an effort to argue that the change was not lawful. Those who opposed the change argued that other steps should have been followed before allowing people to vote by mail. Republicans figured correctly that voting by mail would raise the number of voters and would increase Biden's chance of winning. When that challenge failed they resorted to other arguments, and eventually violence, to try and put their preferred candidate back in office.
Hopefully my senators and future generations do everything to keep you away from the court.
@@USLawEssentials did the legislators prescribe the law to vote by mail?
very dishonorable and shameful on the part of the supreme court. Texas did have standing because the election of a president is a collective endeavour. What Pennsylvania did unlawfully had an impact in Texas. This was a cowardly political decision and no amount of mental gymnastics can justify what they did.
who has standing
Thanks for your question, JL. A party that can allege an injury. For example, if a voter PA were to allege that his mail-in vote was rejected because he supported the reelection of Trump while a similar vote were cast by a Biden voter then he should have standing.
GJ. Thanks for sharing. I understand you believe that the voting laws in certain states were unconstitutional. However, courts that have addressed this issue did not reach the conclusion you would have preferred. You may wish to read those decisions (including decisions by judges who probably share at least some of your political views) After you read the decisions you can see whether you think they are well-reasoned or not. If you think their reasoning is flawed, feel free to share your opinion as to why you think the wrong conclusion was reached. You may wish to refer to the specific language in the decisions which you think is wrong and explain your perspective. I invited others to do so but they responded emotionally and the conversation ended.Also, in the video above, I attempted to summarize a very brief SCOTUS decision and I believe my summary was accurate. If you think the summary was inaccurate I welcome you to share your opinion.
@@USLawEssentials so you mean no injury to the other states when a state changes its election rules to favor a candidate? which one should be followed the constitution or the state law?
Uld, to which court decision are you referring? Are you referring to the Supreme Court decision referred to in the video? The state court decisions? The lower federal court decisions?
@@USLawEssentials im talking about the law in general... the example you stated is more on a community level... while i think the texas case is more on the state level thats why it should have been heard by the Supreme Court. All states i think have a standing on this since this is an election and the outcome will have effects on the other states and not only on the swing states. this will only prove that corruption/bias exist on every branch of government... Trump is not the cause of the American Divide.. its those people who cant accept him winning the election.
So, if a state does something unconstitutional, who is there to remedy that?
Hi DSM. Plaintiffs with standing who claim that state actors violated their Constitutional rights may sue. In fact, plaintiffs sued in many courts over the past several months alleging that the most recent elections violated their Constitutional rights. You can read the decisions addressing their complaints because they are publicly available. SCOTUS did not take this particular case based on Article III of the Constitution.
But isn't the Constitution also basically a contract between states to follow certain laws as part of the union? If one state goes against what's written in the Constitution, is that not the same as a breach of contract? If so, then Texas, having played by the rules so to speak abiding by that contract, absolutely is affected by another state running an unconstitutional election in chosing the President, especially when multiple states ran unconstitutional elections, I think SCOTUS saying Texas doesn't have standing is a weak cowardly legal excuse at best
Just to add, the electors clause of the Constitution I believe it is, describes how elections are to be run, it also says that if a state wants to change the states election laws, it has to go thru the legislature of the state to amend the state Constitution, then be put forward for a vote for the people to vote on, these states in contest changed state election laws either by executive changes or judicial changes, neither are a legitimate way of changing the election laws, hence they violated the Constitution, aka breaking federal law, so SCOTUS had no legitimate reason to throw out the case, political hacks at best who have violated their constitutional duties plain and simple, me as well as many others have lost all respect for SCOTUS
It's an interesting argument although I don't think it's persuasive. You might want to read the memoranda of law which are publicly available.
I'm also not a lawyer, so I wouldn't expect myself to be extremely persuasive in a legal argument, if I were to study a little more I could probably make a more persuasive argument, but this is what I've come up with from the research I have done, and as you know, legal research can take a LOT of time, of which isn't fruitful for me not being in a legal profession, but I try to learn as much as I can to be informed
This is tough. Cause I see injury. Keystone pipeline. Higher taxes. Higher gas. I guess these don’t count cause you might not be able to pinpoint the cause of these losses but they are a result of Biden’s changes.
Could not refill the same suit with this injury ?
Thanks for commenting. No, those are not injuries. That is just disagreement on a policy after a democratic election. For example, some voters in the US have historically been upset by emancipation of slaves, health care, environmental policy, foreign policy, etc. but those are not injuries. In a democracy, people who oppose policies offer their ideas and run on those ideas. If the majority disagrees that is not an injury.
@@USLawEssentials thanks so much for fast response you indeed are great in response to what others have said. I understand. But not all the way cause sometimes policies are harmful and do cause injury. But I guess the arguments would be injury for who cause in most cases someone is benefiting. But it just seems that when if a president did truly cheat that is absolute and MAJOR harm to all the people.
@@USLawEssentials also it’s probably just perspective and I’m not really advising the injury ruling I understand it. Just from a perspective I have from the understanding I have gained if that it’s massive injury but maybe not from a legal perspective. Good stuff thanks
The Texas lawsuit had absolutely zero chance of working.