“‘The last wall’: How dozens of judges across the political spectrum rejected Trump’s efforts to overturn the election.” Rosalind S. Helderman and Elise Viebeck of The Washington Post have this report.

“Prominent Architects Group Prohibits Design of Death Chambers; The American Institute of Architects has changed its stance on members who design spaces for executions or prolonged solitary confinement”: Julia Jacobs of The New York Times has this report.

“Ex-Trump attorney files legal Hail Mary, asks Supreme Court to review Michigan case”: Dave Boucher of The Detroit Free Press has this report.

And Craig Mauger of The Detroit News reports that “Trump supporters want Supreme Court to review another Michigan election case.”

“Trump says Supreme Court ‘let us down’ on election challenge”: Alex Swoyer and Dave Boyer of The Washington Times have this report.

And Evan Semones of Politico reports that “Trump flays former allies, calls to ‘fight on’ after Supreme Court defeat; Trump aired a lengthy list of his ongoing grievances with the high court’s decision that dismissed a longshot challenge by the attorney general of Texas.”

“Republicans Find Themselves Speechless Following a Supreme Court Defeat; A ruling against President Trump appears to leave no avenue forward for the president, forcing Republicans to ‘play the hand we’re dealt'”: Stephanie Saul and Nicholas Fandos of The New York Times have this report.

“Donald Trump stood no chance in front of a conservative Supreme Court. Here’s why.” Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“Wisconsin Supreme Court shows divisions as it hears Trump lawsuit seeking to overturn state’s election”: Patrick Marley of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has an article that begins, “The state Supreme Court showed deep divisions Saturday as it contemplated a final push by President Donald Trump to throw out Democrat Joe Biden’s narrow win in Wisconsin.”

And Riley Vetterkind of The Wisconsin State Journal reports that “Wisconsin Supreme Court hearing on Donald Trump’s election challenge features heated rhetoric.”

You can view at least some of the video of today’s Supreme Court of Wisconsin oral argument via this link.

“Want to steal an election in Wisconsin? It’s harder than you think.” Phil Brinkman and Chris Rickert of The Wisconsin State Journal have this report.

“Paul Newby wins NC chief justice race as incumbent Cheri Beasley concedes”: Danielle Battaglia and Charlie Innis of The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina have a report that begins, “A hand-recount of votes in North Carolina’s election was not enough for state Supreme Court Chief Justice Cheri Beasley to overcome her colleague’s lead in the race to retain her seat. Beasley, a Democrat, conceded the race to her Republican challenger, Justice Paul Newby, on Saturday.”

“Making Sense of Texas v. Pennsylvania: President Trump doesn’t like standing doctrine, and thinks that Justice Alito and Thomas ruled for him.” Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“The Supreme Court’s clear message to President Trump: Stop.” Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

Deciphering, rewriting, and potentially retitling Justice Alito’s separate statement in Texas v. Pennsylvania: Thanks to everyone who has taken time to respond to my tweet from last night seeking views on whether yesterday evening’s U.S. Supreme Court order was unanimous in rejecting Texas’ effort to overturn the outcome of the 2020 presidential election or was instead a 7-0-2 vote.

Let’s begin with the relevant text from the order:

Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U.S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

And the Court’s order itself stated:

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.

(As an aside, the order reveals that it was written by someone on the Court who spells the possessive of Texas by adding an apostrophe s.)

As I see it, there are two possible ways to understand Alito’s statement. (1) Perhaps he agrees with the Court’s disposition of the case without reaching the merits but first would have granted Texas’ motion for leave to file its bill of complaint. (2) Or, in the alternative, he would grant Texas’ motion for leave to file its bill of complaint, he would deny some unspecified amount of or perhaps all “other relief,” and he expresses no view on any other issue. The statement would certainly be much more clear, in my view, if Alito had said he would not grant ANY other relief (meaning he would deny all other relief) and that accordingly he is expressing no view on THE MERITS, as opposed to “on any other issue.”

Deciphering Justice Alito’s separate statement: That Alito’s writing appears under the title “Statement” indicates that he agrees with the result that the Court reached in denying all relief to Texas. For example, when a Justice issues a statement respecting the denial of certiorari, he or she is not disagreeing with the denial of review in this particular case but rather is observing that some other case presenting the issue might be more deserving of review. The title appended to Alito’s separate writing — even if not the most appropriate title under the circumstances, as I explain below — is the strongest indication to me that the decision to deny all relief was unanimous. And Alito’s assertion that he would deny “other relief” can be read to mean ANY and ALL other relief, and his assertion that he expresses “no view on an other issue” most likely means that he agrees with the dismissal for lack of standing, which is not an adjudication on the merits.

Rewriting Justice Alito’s separate statement: If my understanding is correct that Alito agreed with the rest of the Court that Texas lacked standing to bring this case, here is how I would rewrite his statement:

In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U.S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but deny all other relief due to lack of standing, thereby expressing no view on the merits of this matter.

This rewrite would make clear that all nine Justices concluded that Texas lacked standing, and it would further underscore that the entire Court’s resolution of the case had nothing to do with its merit or lack thereof.

Retitling Justice Alito’s separate statement: Technically speaking, Alito’s statement qualified as at least a partial dissent, as in the case of Arizona v. California that he cited, in which he joined Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent from the Court’s denial of the motion for leave to file the bill of complaint. So perhaps the statement could have been more accurately been titled “dissenting in part but concurring in the judgment,” “dissenting in part but concurring in the result,” “concurring in the judgment,” or “concurring in the result.” Any of these alternate titles would have made it absolutely clear that the decision to reject Texas’ request to overturn the outcome of the 2020 presidential election was unanimous.

Before concluding, I acknowledge that some have opined that the lack of clarity in Alito’s separate statement may have been intentional rather than accidental. To be sure, he certainly had adequate time to decide what to say, since Texas had filed its motion for leave to file a bill of complaint on Monday and the Court’s denial issued on Friday. In any event, I wrote this to explain why I have concluded that the Court unanimously rejected Texas’ request to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, while also demonstrating how easily Alito could have altered his statement to remove any and all uncertainty in that regard.