You probably want to put your question in the election2020 case section. But I imagine it's likely the same pleading that is in the court listener link I just posted, which also has all of the evidence files.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/12/07/texas-sues-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin-at-supreme-court-election-rules/amp/

If a case makes it on the docket, does that guarantee it gets heard?

Do you mean on the docket for the Supreme Court? Yes. If they "grant cert" then the case will be considered.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

So, it's gonna be heard?

I think they are just showing the initial filings with the court. I see no order granting Cert

Ah, I see. Thanks!

Yeppers

someone posted this link on twitter: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1

"If the Justices decide to accept a case (grant a petition for certiorari), the case is placed on the docket."

That would show up in the orders as `Petition GRANTED`, no?

do you have an example showing this is wrong? its uscourts.gov lol

Taken from: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-280.html

can someone show me a case where the record shows a case being docketed and then later declined to be heard?

hmm looking back at the cases on the scotus homepage, it does show docketed preceeding petition granted

all very confusing, it would be great if robert would pop in and tell us whats up in a sentence or two lol

Yeppers. If they grant cert then they case will be heard.

I do not see an Order of Cert from the SC, yet.

Generally a Justice will review the complaint. He/She may then direct further filings (response, brief, whatever). When the Court reviews those filings they will decide whether or not to grand Cert.

Hmm.. So, in light of this ruling on the case in PA, it's likely they will not grant cert on the TX case. Am I understanding it right?

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-pennsylvania-tom-wolf-courts-0b7005328243eeca23f8bc3368549879?fbclid=IwAR3PQNlrJm5hAICfBYlVWQv3yt1GMIdlh0JIX9Jjajtp3Q7j086s5tLR6wA

Im not sure about how their electronic docketing system works. I dont think the fact that it made the electronic filing system/electronic docket that cert is granted. I just think its a way to keep up with the status. No cert, yet.

Oh wow.... that is news to me. the SCOTUS declined to take the case....

I honestly think that Texas is going to have standing problems so I sincerely doubt that gets heard

No, the denied the Kelly case

Texas case is docketed

Louisiana joined in w texas

Right... but I dont see an order granting Cert on the Texas case. It might happen but so far it has not

Read up... just because the case is listed on that website does not mean Cert has been granted.

They docketed Kelly's case, too.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20a98.html

I know I'm incredibly late coming in, but I just have to say I'm so excited to see Ted cruz offering to present. I voted for him over trump the first time as a while in when I was protesting against trump (2016). I like how he thinks.

LOL... yikes

@Fefe if you look at @jfindley 's link it shows the same thing. That website just keeps tract of filings. It does not mean that the Court has accepted the case.

From the bit that I had read the best case that I have seen was the Kelly case. I still thought it would fail. But it was the best of the lot, imo.

so that doesnt bode well for the Texas case

Will we see a reason behind the Kelly case denial?

I feel like that would be something people would wanna know

They might with a case about the election. But generally its like a one or two sentence order saying "Cert denied"

I'm trying to find it, already 🙂

Yes. I agree. But generally when Cert is denied it means the court agreed with the lower court. In this case the PA Supreme Court.

It may be due to the Texas case being filed covering what was in the Kelly case was well as a wider array of issues with other states since there weren't any explanations or dissents that came with it.

@Fefe, you just advanced to level 1!

If you can believe the AP, the gist of it was that the outcome was unlikely to change anything, therefore, why waste our time?

That kinda makes me think the TX case has a shot, as it calls into question more than enough electoral votes to affect the outcome of the election, but that standing issue is probably going to require some real word-magic to convince people..