Last week, I’m sure many of us were heartbroken once we learned that the Supreme Court had decline to hear the case regarding the election fraud.

We’ve all been hearing that this was going to the Supreme Court and that finally, someone would step in and uphold the Constitution of the United States that governs our land.

That’s why it was so shocking when we learned that they weren’t even going to hear the case and said that Texas had not “demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.” Simply put, they didn’t stay in their lane.

But in all actuality, this was the right call by the Supreme Court and I’ll explain why.

Article III of the Constitution limits the “judicial Power” to only “Cases” and “Controversies.” Very early in the nation’s history, the Supreme Court affirmed that the original understanding of these terms was limited to disputes between parties, not disputes about the law.

In 1793, the Washington administration confronted several legal questions related to the enforcement of foreign treaties. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the justices of the Supreme Court asking for their opinion on those questions.

The justices wrote back to President Washington declining to answer any of the questions, explaining that both the “Lines of Separation drawn by the Constitution between the three Departments of Government” and the Supreme Court as “a court in the last Resort” were “Considerations which afford strong arguments against the Propriety of our extrajudicially deciding the questions alluded to.”

The key word in that explanation was “extrajudicially.” Because the questions did not arise from a concrete dispute between two particular parties for the court to settle, providing an advisory opinion would have impermissibly crossed the boundary limiting the judicial branch to only cases and controversies. As the Supreme Court put it in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803): “The province of the Court is solely to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the Executive or Executive officers perform duties in which they have a discretion.”

This is something that the Trump legal team needs to handle. This case that was rejected by SCOTUS was not the one that the Trump legal team had been working on since November, this was completely separate.*