don't trump's campaign to stop joe biden from taking office next month we put that question to michael morley he's an election law expert at florida state university. well this one of the things that made the texas suit so unique and again the court held they didn't even have jurisdiction a lot of commentators had pointed out the numerous procedural and jurisdictional hurdles that it faced but one of the the unique aspects of the texas suit is that it essentially sought to bring the entire election before the supreme court that it identified is a 4 different states where texas claimed it had statutory and constitutional problems and invited the court to to handle the issue in one fell swoop they're still read there are still cases pending in the lower courts as a matter of fact the wisconsin supreme court has just agreed to hear an appeal brought by the trump campaign tomorrow there are other cases where the trump campaign has lost in the lower courts where it can still ask the supreme court itself to hear those cases so over the upcoming days and potentially even weeks i expect to see contin

from all that's go to orlando and speak to professor michael t. morley and election and constitutional law expert from florida state university professor welcome it seemed to be widely expected that this challenge by texas would fail which turned out to be correct why did the supreme court dismiss it. the supreme court held that texas lacked standing to challenge the results of the other states elections the presidential election in the united states we often think of it as a single nationwide unitary event when in reality it's conducted as a series of $51.00 separate elections within each of the 50 states as well as the district of columbia and so the supreme court held that it lacked jurisdiction over texas' challenge because it said the state of texas didn't have legal interest in how other states went about conducting their presidential election and whether there were violations of other states laws or even violations of the u.s. constitution in those other states so it refused to hear the case due to texas' lack of standing to pursue the types of le

from all its go to orlando and speak to professor michael t. morley and election and constitutional law expert from florida state university professor welcome it seemed to be widely expected that this challenge by texas would fail which turned out to be correct why did the supreme court dismiss it. the supreme court held that texas lacked standing to challenge the results of the other states elections the presidential election in the united states we often think of it as a single nationwide unitary event when in reality it's conducted as a series of $51.00 separate elections within each of the 50 states as well as the district of columbia and so the supreme court held that it lacked jurisdiction over texas' challenge because it said the state of texas didn't have legal interest in how other states went about conducting their presidential election and whether there were violations of other states laws or even violations of the u.s. constitution in those other states so when it refused to hear the case due to texas' lack of standing to pursue the types