The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Montana Republicans’ attempts to use a variant of the so-called “independent state legislature” theory to overturn two state election laws.

According to the maximalist version of the theory, which the justices rejected in 2023, state legislatures would have almost complete authority over election regulations since state courts would not be able to stop them.

State courts can perform judicial review, the Supreme Court ruled, but the majority opinion emphasized that they do not have “free rein.”

The high court’s ruling did not establish a precise standard for identifying when the Constitution’s Elections Clause prohibits judges from interfering with state legislators’ power to oversee federal elections.

In her appeal, Montana Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen (R) asked the justices to consider that open question to resurrect two state laws that prohibit same-day voter registration and paid ballot collection on election day in Montana.

A challenge by the Montana Democratic Party and other interest groups led Montana’s highest court to invalidate the laws under the state constitution in a split 5-2 ruling.

“In short, the Montana Supreme Court has assumed a de facto new role as the final and exclusive arbiter of all federal election legislation in Montana. This Court’s review is urgently needed,” Jacobsen, represented by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen (R), wrote in court filings.

“Montana’s high court petition was backed the National Republican Senatorial Committee, 15 other Republican state attorneys general and the America First Legal Foundation. Montana Democrats urged the nation’s highest court to let the lower ruling stand, noting that the case also involved other election laws and legal arguments,” The Hill reported.

“The court’s analysis was based on the ample trial record in this case and firmly grounded in existing Montana law. There was nothing extraordinary or inappropriate about it,” they wrote in court filings.

Last week, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal challenging Delaware’s ban on assault-style rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines, as well as a case regarding Maryland’s handgun licensing requirements.

By doing so, the Court avoided addressing two significant cases involving the contentious issue of gun rights.

The justices turned away an appeal from a group of gun enthusiasts and firearm advocacy organizations, who sought to block Delaware’s ban on “assault weapons” and magazines capable of holding more than 17 rounds, following a lower court’s decision not to issue a preliminary injunction.

Reuters noted that such weapons have been used in several mass shootings in the U.S., but according to FBI crime states, the vast majority of gun-related homicides are committed with handguns.

The justices also declined to hear an appeal from the gun rights group Maryland Shall Issue and other plaintiffs, who were challenging a lower court’s ruling that upheld the state’s licensing law as consistent with the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear weapons.

While the justices declined to hear these two cases, the court did not take action on two separate appeals challenging Maryland’s ban on assault weapons and one in Rhode Island regarding large-capacity ammunition magazines.

With its 6-3 conservative majority, the Supreme Court has consistently adopted an originalist interpretation of gun rights in significant rulings dating back to 2008.

Delaware’s gun safety laws, enacted in 2022, ban several semi-automatic “assault” rifles, including the AR-15 and AK-47, but allow individuals who owned these weapons before the law’s passage to retain them under specific conditions. The law also prohibits large-capacity magazines, affecting devices owned before its enactment.

The challengers in the case include state residents attempting to purchase the banned firearms or magazines, a firearms dealer, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation.

They have said that the lower courts wrongly rejected their argument that a “deprivation of Second Amendment rights necessarily constitutes an irreparable injury.” A federal judge denied the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction in 2023. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Philadelphia, upheld that decision in 2024.

That 3rd Circuit questioned the plaintiffs’ contention that an injunction is essentially required in the case. “Preliminary injunctions are not automatic,” the 3rd Circuit ruled.

“Rather, tradition and precedent have long reserved them for extraordinary situations. We see nothing extraordinary here,” the court added.

Maryland’s 2013 law mandates that most residents obtain a qualification license before purchasing a handgun. This process requires applicants to be fingerprinted, complete training, and undergo background checks.

The challengers argue that the process is too burdensome and that the requirement, which “can take a month or longer” to complete, discourages people from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Maryland, however, asserts that the fingerprinting and safety course requirements provide “significant public safety benefits.” The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, ruled in favor of the state.