Texas' SCOTUS Case 'Be-All, End-All'

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's lawsuit filed with the U.S. Supreme Court is the "be-all, end-all case" for President Donald Trump's ongoing and long-running election challenge, Trump lawyer Jordan Sekulow said Tuesday on Newsmax TV.

"The Supreme Court is not just considering what Texas has filed [Tuesday], they are now going the next step, which is to say, 'We want a response from the states named,'" Sekulow told Tuesday's "Stinchfield," referring to four battleground states Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

"This is the case we've been talking about to reach SCOTUS. This is the outcome-determinative case, 62 electoral college votes, enough to change the outcome of the election."

The Supreme Court, in a case of "original jurisdiction," Sekulow said, will weigh the lawsuit's proposed remedy of the four state legislatures seating new electors, because the "electors clause" was violated, along with "due process" and "equal protection."

"These are all constitutional challenges that Texas is bringing," Sekulow added in his interview with host Grant Stinchfield.

"It's specifically going at the heart of constitutional challenges."

The four states above have until Thursday at 3 p.m. ET to "actively respond" to election fraud allegations in AG Paxton's bill of complaint. Sekulow noted all the other cases brought before – regardless of their lack of success in courts – are included and germane to Paxton's case, labeled Texas vs. Pennsylvania at the Supreme Court.

"I think for the Newsmax audience, they need to understand this is the be-all, end-all case to really determine the outcome of this election," Sekulow said. "This is the major challenge, the one we were waiting for.

"That's different than most court cases at the Supreme Court, because this is a case of original jurisdiction . . . because it is state versus state."

Stinchfield noted Louisiana is signing on to Texas' complaint, and Sekulow added more states likely will, too.

In papers filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, Paxton claimed the states unlawfully enacted last-minute changes, which skewed the results of the general election.

The papers also allege the majority of the rushed decisions, made by local officials, were not approved by the state legislatures, thereby circumventing the Constitution.

"The battleground states flooded their people with unlawful ballot applications and ballots while ignoring statutory requirements as to how they were received, evaluated, and counted," read a statement posted on the Texas attorney general's website.