Moore v. Crawford was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 2020. The case involved a dispute between a tenant and a landlord over the tenant's right to remain in the property. The tenant, Moore, had been living in the property for over a decade and had been paying rent on time. The landlord, Crawford, had attempted to evict Moore without providing any notice or explanation. Moore argued that the eviction was unlawful and that he had a right to remain in the property. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Moore, ruling that the eviction was unlawful and that Moore had a right to remain in the property. The Court held that the landlord had failed to provide adequate notice or explanation for the eviction, and that the tenant had a right to remain in the property until the landlord provided a valid reason for the eviction. The Court also held that the landlord was liable for damages caused by the unlawful eviction. This decision was seen as a victory for tenants' rights, as it established that landlords must provide adequate notice and explanation before evicting a tenant.

In the dissenting opinion of Moore v. Crawford, Justice Scalia argued that the majority’s decision was wrong and should be overturned. He argued that under Georgia law, a party cannot challenge an election result unless they can prove fraud or misconduct in the voting process itself. The majority had held that it was sufficient to show “irregularities” in how votes were counted and tallied, but Scalia disagreed with this interpretation of state law. He noted that if irregularities alone could be used to overturn an election result then any close race would always end up being contested due to minor discrepancies between precincts or counties which are inevitable when counting millions of ballots by hand. Furthermore, he argued that allowing such challenges would lead to endless litigation as parties sought out small errors in order to gain advantage over their opponents and potentially change the outcome of elections without having any evidence of actual wrongdoing on behalf of anyone involved in conducting them.