Welcome to the dispatch podcast. I'm your host Sarah Izger joined by Steve Hayes. And our special guest today is Ilya Shapiro. He's the Kato Institute's director for their Center for Constitutional Studies.

He also has a book that has come out recently, Supreme Disorder Judicial nominations and the politics of America's highest court because this week, I know it's not advisory opinions, but we've got to talk about the Supreme Court.

Let's dive in Ilya Shapiro. Thrilled to have you on. We'll get to why you're wearing a Hawaiian shirt later. But first, so the President of the United States tweeted this morning.

Now that the Biden administration will be a scandal plagued mess for years to come, it is much easier for the Supreme Court of the United States to follow the Constitution and do what everybody knows has to be done. They must show great courage and wisdom. Save the USA.

What do you think the Supreme Court's actually going to do in this case before we even get to the details of the case?

Well, first of all, Sarah, good to be on the flagship dispatch podcast, been promoted than advisory opinion. The remnant, finally, the big kahuna here, speaking of my Hawaiian shirt. And I have many, by the way, for my soldier in here in Daytona Beach for the rest of the month with my family because the remedy for 2020 is apparently spring break 1984.

But anyway, getting back to the question at hand, I don't think the Supreme Court will do anything with this. I think they will decline to take up what's called an original jurisdiction case. That is when a state sues another state that goes directly to the Supreme Court and the court can decide whether to take up the case.

And in fact, in theory, the Supreme Court is the trial court when states to other states and what happens then, it's not like we have a jury trial with the justices there in the marble palace or what have you. They appoint a special master who takes evidentiary hearings, etc., etc.

But anyway, that's all too much in the weeds because this case, I think, is more of a political or PR statement than it is a real lawsuit. I mean, it's better done. The teas are crossed and the eyes are dotted. We don't have all sorts of crack and related typos and, you know, improper filings and so forth.

But I can't see the Supreme Court taking this up.

Is there any merit to the standing issue of why Texas gets to sue Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia?

Yeah, it's a dubious standing theory. In fact, in other circumstances, Texas would be foremost on the other side saying, why are these other states trying to tell Texas how we run our elections or whatever?

So it definitely is an unusual procedural posture. That's probably why the Texas Solicitor General, Kyle Hawkins, his name does not appear on the filing. That's important because the SG, the Solicitor General for the state is supposed to represent the state before the Supreme Court and other prominent tribunals.

And here, the embattled Attorney General Ken Paxton had to hire a, quote, unquote, special counsel to do this. So, you know, very unusual scenario. A bunch of states have jumped on that, of course, and now over 100 congressmen have filed an amicus brief. But this is, this is, as I said, more of a political posturing or a press release.

I mean, for Ken Paxton, for the Texas AG, it might be, you know, trying to ask for a pardon from the president for that matter. You know, I don't want to question people's motives too much. But just on the legal analysis, you're right.

The standing is, you know, before you even get to the merits of whether the swing states, electoral processes are corrupted. One state simply cannot sue another state for how they, how they do things.

I would just say as a Texan, by the way, that it is a foundational value that other states can't tell us what to do. Like don't mess with Texas is kind of premenced on that whole thing, Steve.

Can we take a step back a bit? Can you, Ilya, can you just tell us what is Texas? What's their argument? What's the case here?

Well, there are four states that are being sued, and I'm not about to name them because I'm just sure to leave out one of them.

They're all swing state trying to name not coincident. Like Perry trying to name cabinet departments, but speaking of Texas.

But the theory is that there are defects in the way that various electoral procedures were enacted and implemented with this election.

Notably, that state executives or state judiciaries changed in kind of a moving target last minute situation because of the pandemic, because of late lawsuits and what have you, so the judiciaries and the executive branches of those states changed their various procedures in violation of the constitutional provision that says state legislatures dictate the time place and manner of their elections.

...