The Supreme Court just shut off Trump allies' strategy to overturn presidential elections
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge John G. Roberts Jr. testifies before Senate Judiciary Committee during confirmation hearings to be Chief Justice. (Rob Crandall/Shutterstock)

The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling in Moore v. Harper, rejecting a fringe legal theory that that could have given state legislatures a blanket right to ignore state courts on election and redistricting issues and pass unrestricted rigged legislative maps, was met with a collective sigh of relief by voting rights advocates across the country.

But the ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts could do more than prevent gerrymandering, reported MSNBC. It could also finally put a limit on the type of frenzied litigation Trump and his allies used in 2020 to try to throw out the election results in several swing states.

"The Supreme Court said clearly that state legislatures do not have unlimited authority and that in most instances state courts, as had been traditionally understood, can weigh in," reported Lawrence Hurley. "The ruling in a redistricting case applied to the Elections Clause of the Constitution, which governs rules for federal elections. But if the court had embraced the idea, the legal rationale could have applied also to the Electors Clause, which lays out how presidents are elected."

Moreover, "independent state legislature theory," noted Hurley, was actively championed by some of the same activists who tried to throw out the election: "Conservative lawyer [John] Eastman had embraced the theory as part of his widelydiscredited argument that then-Vice President Mike Pence had the power to refuse to certify the 2020 presidential election results," even citing the so-called "plenary power" of the legislatures in his infamous memo outlining how to overturn the election.

Eastman, who was investigated as part of the probe into January 6, is now also facing disbarment proceedings over his alleged election plotting.

"Andrew Grossman, a conservative lawyer who filed a brief at the Supreme Court urging it to overturn the Pennsylvania court ruling in 2020, said the new ruling made it clear that 'there are going to be some limits' on state courts," said the report. "In the meantime, lawyers from across the ideological spectrum expect more litigation, potentially including fringe theories similar to those raised in 2020. 'We will see cases, but almost certainly unless something screwy happens they are going to lose a lot,' said Cameron Kistler, a lawyer at the voting rights group Protect Democracy."