The Supreme Court Friday rejected by a margin of 7-2 a Texas challenge to President-elect Joe Biden’s wins in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

“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,” the order reads.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, released a statement saying, “we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction,” citing the high court’s decision in Arizona v. California, in which the Supreme Court said “we likely do not have discretion to decline review in cases within our original jurisdiction that arise between two or more States.”

“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,” Alito continued.

The Washington Examiner reached out to the White House and the Trump campaign for a response to the Supreme Court’s decision.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed the case late Monday night, alleging that the four swing states had “tainted the integrity” of the presidential election with mail-in ballots. The charge electrified President Trump’s allies after the president on Wednesday called the dispute “the big one” on Twitter. Seventeen states, led by Missouri, that day filed an amicus brief supporting Paxton. Two more, Arizona and Ohio, added their names to the list Thursday.

On Thursday and Friday, 126 House Republicans also threw their support behind Paxton, including Minority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Dan Crenshaw of Texas. Louisiana Rep. Mike Johnson led their amicus brief, after saying earlier in the week that Trump encouraged him to compile a list of supporters.

Trump himself motioned to intervene in the case, claiming through attorneys on Wednesday that the case was a federal issue because it violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution. The four accused states, members of the Trump legal team wrote, “under the guise of responding to the COVID-19 pandemic” tampered with the system of mail-in voting to skew to a Democratic advantage, creating a constitutional crisis.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz confirmed to the Washington Examiner that Trump called him on Tuesday about presenting oral arguments in the case. Cruz, who had offered to do the same in a similar, and likewise rejected, dispute raised in Pennsylvania, agreed to do so here, too, if the court accepted the case, a spokesperson said.

The four accused states on Thursday responded to Paxton’s claims, all requesting that the court reject Texas’s case.

“Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election, and nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in which four other states run their elections,” Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro wrote in his brief.

Washington, D.C., as well as 21 other states and territories, filed an amicus brief supporting the swing states.

Paxton’s lawsuit also earned the criticism of Republican Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, who told the Washington Examiner that the entire affair seemed to be a “PR stunt” put on by Paxton to obtain a pardon from Trump. Paxton is currently the subject of an FBI investigation for allegedly using the power of his office illegally to benefit Austin real estate developer Nate Paul.

“I suspect the Supreme Court swats this away,” Sasse said on Thursday, predicting Trump’s failure.

The case is the second election dispute the court has rejected, following its Tuesday order shooting down the Pennsylvania case.