So the US Supreme Court decided that Texas did not have standing in their challenge of voting irregularities in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.  It wasn't really a suprise to the Texas AG, and President Trump wasn't counting on it either.

The real question is whether Justices will hear cases brought either directly by the Trump Campaign or by Republicans in those states or elsewhere. While that has yet to be seen, and there is certainly reason to be cautious, there are credible legal scholars who believe that the Court will hear at least one of those cases.
If they do, here's something important to remember:
Sometimes it is the boring, in-the weeds, technical stuff that is overlooked, but ultimately matters in resolving historic political disputes.  In this instance, a precedent and an earlier ruling by the Supreme Court about elections in Wisconsin, (the state where some say that the President's case is the weakest), may tell us a lot.
And a surprising source for that information actually comes from a liberal academic and legal scholar who writes for the Washington Post.  As you read the article, please note that it was written on October 27th, and its basic premise is that the Supreme Court will not be drawn into the election, because it wasn't even going to be close. Then read what he has to say about Justice Kavanaugh's opinion.  Also note the writer's comments about how the most likey scenario would be for Congress to choose the president, and how Democrats would likely be firmly in control.  He may or may not be referring to control of each state's delegation to the House of Representatives.  Either way he's wrong.
Here's the link to the article, which you can copy and paste to your browser.

Click to read article