A Pennsylvania news outlet has reported that
"President Donald Trump’s campaign has filed a lawsuit in the United States Supreme Court to halt vote counting in the key battleground state of Pennsylvania over a lack of “transparency.”
I have not heard of cases going straight to the Supreme Court. How does this happen without working its way up the lower federal courts first?
This is not an election question as such even though it is related to the election. It could apply to anything, so I did not put it in the Elections forum.
I caught a piece on the radio last night that talked about this a little.
All Things Considered link
Relevant part:
The Supreme Court does not hear cases, originally. They have to be filed somewhere else. And, presumably, whatever the president asked would be something nationwide, which the court doesn’t really have jurisdiction to do because the time, place and manner of holding elections is up to the state. So to pursue a remedy like this, you do have to go through the state procedures and laws.
Going straight to the Supreme Court without going to the lower instances first is called original jurisdiction. And in the case of SCOTUS, it is limited to very few classes of cases - effectively cases concerning foreign diplomatic and consular officials, and disputes between states. Congress cannot expand this by means of legislation (that is what Marbury v Madison was about).
IANAL but AIUI they would have to file for an injunction at the relevant district(s) and then daisychain up the ladder a plea that because of the urgency of the issue the higher courts must relieve the lower and pick it up. Forida 2000 went first from the counties to the Florida SC and then to SCOTUS.
This is clearly a “Hail Mary” strategy. Would the SCOTUS take on a case directly from the President’s lawyers? In the past it would be very unlikely, in today’s politicized Supreme Court?, who knows. Grab some popcorn and let’s see what happens…
Should have include a link to the story, which includes an image of the first page of the filing.
Not just the first page, but the whole thing. To me, however, that brief does not read like a new suit but an application of the Trump campaign to intervene in the already existing case about counting Pennsylvania votes mailed on election day and received until Friday.
There is existing litigation challenging the Pa. Secretary of State’s changes to the state’s voting procedures, arguing that those procedures were enacted by the state legislature and not within her authority to change. It has already gone up to the US Supreme Court, which deferred ruling until after the election. If I remember correctly, the decision to defer was 5-3, while four Justices signaled that they would likely side with the Secretary and four that they would not. In connection with the decision to defer a ruling, the state agreed to segregate the ballots that would not qualify under the law as enacted by the legislature but would under the modifications enacted by the Secretary.
The Supreme Court does have original jurisdiction in some instances but I am not seeing it here (although how did they get Bush v. Gore?)
Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. SOURCE
On direct review from the Florida State Supreme Court. Still not original jurisdiction.