The Supreme Court yesterday rejected the suit brought by Texas against four states, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania & Georgia, for violating their own election laws. Her is what the Court said:

“The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”

That means in the Court's opinion, the Texas suit does not have 'standing'.

The legal definition of 'standing' focuses on whether a prospective plaintiff can show that some personal legal interest has been invaded by the defendant. It is not enough that a person is merely interested as a member of the general public in the resolution of the dispute.

It does not mean that they reviewed and rejected the case on merit. It just means Texas did not have 'standing' to bring the merits of the case to the court.

Still, much more to come.

Who might have 'standing' to bring the merits to the Court?

More From Supreme Court: