"Texas's effort to get this Court to pick the next President has no basis in law or fact. The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated," wrote Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro. The Texas lawsuit, Shapiro said, rested on a "surreal alternate reality."

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel addressed the lawsuit with equally strong language, writing that "the election in Michigan is over. Texas comes as a stranger to this matter and should not be heard here." "The challenge here is an unprecedented one, without factual foundation or a valid legal basis," Michigan's brief said.

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul similarly cast the lawsuit as an "extraordinary intrusion into Wisconsin's and the other defendant States' elections, a task that the Constitution leaves to each State."

Chris Carr, the attorney general of Georgia, put more emphasis on the federalism implications of Texas' lawsuit in his filing. "Texas presses a generalized grievance that does not involve the sort of direct state-against-state controversy required for original jurisdiction," he wrote. "And in any case, there is another forum in which parties who (unlike Texas) have standing can challenge Georgia's compliance with its own election laws: Georgia's own courts."