Replies

SCOTUS never thought that. Only that opinion matters.

SCOTUS has never weighed in on such a matter because no state legislature has tried to "pass" something while not in session.

The law in PA says the legislature is not in right now and won't be back, legally, until January or a special session called by their governor.

Because they aren't in session, they won't have committees, can't have quorum, can't have a floor vote, etc... There's no mechanism for them to meet and pass a resolution (much less a law). And, again, there would be no federal issue for SCOTUS to weigh in on. The dates of the legislative session and the rules governing those sessions are state responsibilities. If PA's laws say the legislature is out, they're out. State's rights/Federalism.

SCOTUS has never weighed in on such a matter because no state legislature has tried to "pass" something while not in session.

But it has. See below:

The state does not act by its people in their collective capacity, but through such political agencies as are duly constituted and established. The legislative power is the supreme authority, except as limited by the constitution of the state, and the sovereignty of the people is exercised through their representatives in the legislature unless by the fundamental law power is elsewhere reposed. The Constitution of the United States frequently refers to the state as a political community, and also in terms to the people of the several states and the citizens of each state. What is forbidden or required to be done by a state is forbidden or required of the legislative power under state constitutions as they exist. The clause under consideration does not read that the people or the citizens shall appoint, but that "each state shall," and if the words "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct" had been omitted, it would seem that the legislative power of appointment could not have been successfully questioned in the absence of any provision in the state constitution in that regard. Hence the insertion of those words, while operating as a limitation upon the state in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power, cannot be held to operate as a limitation on that power itself.

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/146/1/

Because they aren't in session, they won't have committees, can't have quorum, can't have a floor vote, etc...

Each house need only sit as a committee of the whole, with a bare majority in each house all that is required according to the Electors Clause, and the Supremacy Clause. Anyone who doesn't like can take it to the federal courts, where they will lose.