The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a request for injunctive relief filed by Pennsylvania lawmakers and candidates contesting the election results in the commonwealth.
Attorney Greg Teufel told The Epoch Times that the plaintiffs will file a separate petition for a writ of certiorari with a request to expedite the case in due course. He said that there are two parts to the application: to prevent Act 77—the state law in question—from being used in future elections, and to also obtain relief for the 2020 election.
“No court has ever issued an order nullifying the governor’s certification of presidential election results,” the lawyers added, arguing that it could set a precedent for the “judicial invalidation” of a presidential election.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, a George W. Bush nominee, was in charge of the case. The full order from the court stated, “The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.”
“The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution. By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections. Their failure to abide by the rule of law casts a dark shadow of doubt over the outcome of the entire election. We now ask that the Supreme Court step in to correct this egregious error,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement.
Officials from the defendant states disputed the claims in the lawsuit.
In an emailed statement, Georgia Deputy Attorney General Jordan Fuchs said: “The allegations in the lawsuit are false and irresponsible. Texas alleges that there are 80,000 forged signatures on absentee ballots in Georgia, but they don’t bring forward a single person who this happened to. That’s because it didn’t happen.”
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel called the motion “a publicity stunt, not a serious legal pleading.”