The court’s 7-2 opinion is here. A story in The Hill is here.
From the point of view of statutory interpretation, the discussion between the majority and the dissent is fascinating. Besides raising the issue whether the governor’s interpretation of the disputed Mississippi election statute is subject to Chevron deference, the debate turns on whether “year” really means “calendar year” or “365 days” and whether an election which “shall be held” in the same year could have already happened. There is an impassioned dissent, which the majority analogizes to a boy marching the wrong way in a parade and claiming everyone else is going the wrong way.
Part of the basis for the court’s decision rests on its interpretation of the 17th Amendment, and I believe it therefore presents an issue that could be decided by the Supreme Court, if the Mississippi attorney general chooses to seek cert. My earlier coverage of the statutory interpretation issue is here.