No. ______, Original
In the Suprem
e Court of t
he U
nited Stat
es
S
TATE OF
T
EXAS
,
Plaintiff
,
v.
C
OMMONWEALTH OF
P
ENNSYLVANIA
,
S
TATE OF
G
EORGIA
,
S
TATE OF
M
ICHIGAN
,
AND
S
TATE OF
W
ISCONSIN
,
Defendants
.
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR STAY AND ADMINISTRATIVE STAY
Ken Paxton* Attorney General of Texas Brent Webster First Assistant Attorney General of Texas Lawrence Joseph Special Counsel to the Attorney General of Texas Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059) Austin, TX 78711-2548 kenneth.paxton@oag.texas.gov (512) 936-1414 *
Counsel of Record
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages
Table of Authorities ................................................... iii
Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order or, Alternatively, for Stay and Administrative Stay ....................................................................... 1
Statement of the Case ................................................ 2
Constitutional Background ................................. 4
s of Electors Clause ............................................................ 5
Factual Background ............................................. 5
Standard of Review .................................................... 6
Argument .................................................................... 7
I.
This Court is likely to exercise its discretion to hear this case. .................................................. 7
II.
The Plaintiff State is likely to prevail. ................ 8
A.
This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff State's claims ................................................. 9
1.
constitutional and statutory subject-matter jurisdiction. ................................. 9
2.
The claims arise under the Constitution. .......................................... 10
3.
......... 12
4.
Plaintiff State has prudential standing. ................................................ 19
5.
This action is not moot and will not become moot. ......................................... 21
6.
This matter is ripe for review. .............. 21
ii 7.
This action does not raise a non- justiciable political question. ................ 23
8.
No adequate alternate remedy or forum exists. .......................................... 23
B.
The Plaintiff State is likely to prevail on the merits. .................................................... 26
1.
Defendant States violated the Electors Clause by modifying their non-legislative action. ........................... 26
2.
systemic failure to follow State election qualifies as an unlawful amendment of State law. ...................... 30
III.
The other
Winter
-
Hollingsworth
factors warrant interim relief. ....................................... 31
A.
Plaintiff State will suffer irreparable unconstitutional electors vote in the electoral college. .......................................... 32
B.
The Defendant States would not suffer cognizable irreparable harm, and the balance of equities tips to the Plaintiff State. ............................................................ 32
C.
The public interest favors interim relief. ... 33
IV.
Alternatively, this case warrants summary disposition. ......................................................... 34
Conclusion ................................................................ 35