Here is a link to the SCOTUS docket where you can read all the filings of the parties involved. This is updated as more responses come in. The Defendants have until 3pm today to submit.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html




***Update*** Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Utah have now also filed to "Intervein" as additional Plaintiffs. Yesterday, these states and others were part of filing an Amicus Brief. Now, they also want to have skin in the game.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163215/20201209144840609_2020-12-09%20-%20Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20-%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Missouri%20et%20al.%20-%20Final%20with%20Tables.pdf

***Update***
The state of Ohio files an Amicus brief taking neither side, but asks SCOTUS to issue a decision on the meaning

of the Electors Clause at the earliest available opportunity.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163346/20201210125506698_TX%20v%20PA%20-%20Amicus.PDF

Kraken? Is that you?

2:00 Central for the few here not on the East Coast.

AZ went turncoat?

Can individuals file amicus briefings? Could I get my attorney to tack one on for good measure?

Then 74 million trump supports follow suit?

Just add my name to yours.

Oh wait.... i cant think of a name

You probably could. If you like lighting your money on fire, go right ahead.

Can an F16 attorney write an amicus brief we could all sign?

ETA: pookie beat me to it.

itsyourboypookie said:

---

Can individuals file amicus briefings? Could I get my attorney to tack one on for good measure?

Then 74 million trump supports follow suit?

---

If we had 2 weeks I would write a script to allow millions of people to file individual briefs.

lb3 said:

---

Can an F16 attorney write an amicus brief we could all sign?

ETA: pookie beat me to it.

---

Yes

***Update*** Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Utah have now also filed to "Intervein" as additional Plaintiffs. Yesterday, these states and others were part of filing an Amicus Brief. Now, they also want to have skin in the game.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163215/20201209144840609_2020-12-09%20-%20Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20-%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Missouri%20et%20al.%20-%20Final%20with%20Tables.pdf

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

***Update*** Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Utah have now also filed to "Intervein" as additional Plaintiffs. Yesterday, these states and others were part of filing an Amicus Brief. Now, they also want to have skin in the game.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163215/20201209144840609_2020-12-09%20-%20Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20-%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Missouri%20et%20al.%20-%20Final%20with%20Tables.pdf

---

Man would love to see that kind of state line up united and rejecting some Marxist policies from D.C. regarding energy or housing or restrictions if they come down. It would be great to see that process of rebuff from bottom up starting.

itsyourboypookie said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Can an F16 attorney write an amicus brief we could all sign?

ETA: pookie beat me to it.

---

Yes

---

If 74 million did and Texas wins this case and DJT ends up in the White House for another 4 years....I would gladly burn that money needed to do so.

Gyles Marrett said:

---

itsyourboypookie said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Can an F16 attorney write an amicus brief we could all sign?

ETA: pookie beat me to it.

---

Yes

---

If 74 million did and Texas wins this case and DJT ends up in the White House for another 4 years....I would gladly burn that money needed to do so.

---

How much are we talking here? We should have F16 sign on.

I think a lot of states are concerned about manipulations in other states that effect the rights of their own citizens, potentially by any party in the future.

***Update***
The state of Ohio files an Amicus brief taking neither side, but asks SCOTUS to issue a decision on the meaning

of the Electors Clause at the earliest available opportunity.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163346/20201210125506698_TX%20v%20PA%20-%20Amicus.PDF

***Update***

PA sends in their response to Texas

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163367/20201210142206254_Pennsylvania%20Opp%20to%20Bill%20of%20Complaint%20v.FINAL.pdf

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

***Update***

PA sends in their response to Texas

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163367/20201210142206254_Pennsylvania%20Opp%20to%20Bill%20of%20Complaint%20v.FINAL.pdf

---

Lol it basically says "DEBOONKED!"

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

***Update***

PA sends in their response to Texas

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163367/20201210142206254_Pennsylvania%20Opp%20to%20Bill%20of%20Complaint%20v.FINAL.pdf

---

This pretty much sums it up. The defense that the fraud (which is not alleged by Texas) has been debunked.

Quote:

---

What Texas is doing in this proceeding is to ask this Court to reconsider a mass of baseless claims about problems with the election that have already been considered, and rejected, by this Court and other courts. It attempts to exploit this Court's sparingly used original jurisdiction to relitigate those matters. But Texas obviously lacks standing to bring such claims, which, in any event, are barred by laches, and are moot, meritless, and dangerous.

---

***Update***
Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae and Brief for Members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly. as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiff/Defendants of Members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiff/Defendants submitted.

Quote:

---

Accordingly, Members of the General Assembly respectfully request leave to
file this amicus brief to articulate to the Court the importance, to lawmakers and
legislative bodies across the country, of granting Plaintiff's MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE BILL OF COMPLAINT and granting the requested stay or injunctive relief
pending a hearing by the Court on the merits of the case. Granting the motion will
help to clarify to all branches of state government the important boundaries of
judicial, legislative and executive authority when making election related policy.

---

These guys in the PA General Assembly want SCOTUS to rule on the case!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163378/20201210144150193_22O155%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

***Update***

Motion of Certain Select Pennsylvania State Senators for leave to file amicus brief submitted.

Quote:

---

Certain select Pennsylvania State Senators1 bring this brief as Amici Curiae
in support of their authority as a legislative body under the U.S. Constitution, and
respectfully move for leave of Court to file the accompanying amicus brief in support
of neither plaintiffs nor defendants, and instead asks this Court to affirm the grant
of authority to state legislatures, and not courts, under the U.S. Constitution's
Elections Clause.

---

These PA State Senators want SCOTUS to rule on the case!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163372/20201210143813616_PA%20Senate%20Amicus%20Brief%20Main%20Document.pdf


***Update***

Motion of District of Columbia on behalf of 22 States and Territories for leave to file amicus brief submitted.

These States file in support of the Defendant states

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163379/20201210144443769_Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20-%20Motion%20and%20Br.%20of%20Amici%20DC%20et%20al.pdf

***Update***

Motion of Christian Family Coalition for leave to file amicus brief submitted.

Quote:

---

Amicus Christian Family Coalition (CFC) Florida,
Inc., hereby moves on an emergency basis for leave to
file its attached Amicus Brief in support of Plaintiff
Texas' emergency motion and request for judgment.

---

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163386/20201210145330551_22O155%20Amicus%20Christian%20Family%20Coalition%20CFC%20Florida.pdf

***Update***

Brief of State of Michigan in opposition submitted.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163387/20201210145404465_22O155%20Texas%20MI%20BIO%2012-10.pdf

***Update***

Amicus brief of Bryan Cutler Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and Kerry Benninghoff Majority Leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives submitted.

***Update***

Brief of State of Georgia in opposition submitted

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163383/20201210145849997_Georgia%20--%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf

***Update***

Response of State of Wisconsin to motion submitted.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163393/20201210150111653_Brief.pdf

aggiehawg said:

---

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

***Update***

PA sends in their response to Texas

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163367/20201210142206254_Pennsylvania%20Opp%20to%20Bill%20of%20Complaint%20v.FINAL.pdf

---

This pretty much sums it up. The defense that the fraud (which is not alleged by Texas) has been debunked.

Quote:

---

What Texas is doing in this proceeding is to ask this Court to reconsider a mass of baseless claims about problems with the election that have already been considered, and rejected, by this Court and other courts. It attempts to exploit this Court's sparingly used original jurisdiction to relitigate those matters. But Texas obviously lacks standing to bring such claims, which, in any event, are barred by laches, and are moot, meritless, and dangerous.

---

---

Saying PA's defense is limited to "the fraud has been debunked" is grossly mischaracterizing the brief. It focuses much much more on what some might consider procedural (original jurisdiction, standing, mootness) and the alleged constitutional violations under the Electors clauses. The "fraud" discussion is essentially limited to the statement of the case section

LINK

Filing by The Justice Foundation and the Amistad Project.