Replies

Original Jurisdiction...

https://www.fjc.gov/history/courts/jurisdiction-original-supreme-court

Keywords: serious, appropriate, substantial

Trump, if he intervenes, should do so as the President of the United States, advocating for the people and the Office of the President, and to ensure the laws are faithfully executed, and not as “the Trump campaign”. The critical issue is not about the outcome of the election, but about its conduct being compliant with law, or not. Participation by the campaign might derail the effort by tainting the issue of appropriateness... making it appear the court is engaged to choose a winner in an election... rather than resolve issues in law.

Obviously, were Texas to amend the suit to also incorporate complaints against foreign actors, that may have impact, and enable others in joining... only when the cause for that expanded participation is made clear.

A suit arising between states does not guarantee a case will be heard... but muddling the controversy between states by adding non-state actors as participants is an obvious risk:

“Beginning with Cohens v. Virginia in 1821, the Court held that its original jurisdiction was defined entirely by the nature of the parties to a suit, not the subject matter. The Court declined to hear in the first instance cases under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States unless they strictly conformed to one of the state party suits specified in the Constitution: a suit between two or more states, between a state as plaintiff and citizens of another state, and between a state as plaintiff and foreign citizens or governments.

“The Supreme Court established an important exception to this rule when it held that the Court would hear original suits brought by the United States against a state. In the 1892 case of United States v. Texas , Justice John Marshall Harlan ruled that since the federal judicial power extended to “cases in which the United States was a party,” and the Court was granted jurisdiction over cases to which a state was a party, the Court would take jurisdiction in a United States suit against a state. Such suits by the United States increased after the 1890s and usually involved disputes with states over land, though in the late twentieth century they also included a few suits to enforce provisions of the Federal Voting Rights Act.”