BREAKING: Judge in PA tosses Trump campaign lawsuit, says they have presented no compelling evidence

[kpete]

Rick Hasen: “In a total loss the the Trump campaign, a federal district court in Pennsylvania has dismissed the most serious case brought by the campaign and denied the campaign a motion to file an amended complaint.”

“The judge just excoriates this suit, which those of us in the field have called ridiculous from the start.”
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118942

One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this
Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief
despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.

That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained
legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative
complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this
cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its
sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At
bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss
Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice.

Link to tweet

?s=20
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.202.0_1.pdf

[Thekaspervote]

1. "Another bites the dust!"

[ShazzieB]

2. Dismissed "with prejudice"!

Excellent!

[stopbush]

7. DWP means the case is over and cannot be refiled.

[regnaD kciN]

10. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean they can't appeal...

...and Ghouliani's overt reasoning, stated in advance, was that the whole point of this case was to get the matter before a "friendly" Supreme Court. Losing here has no effect in the big picture, unless the packed SCOTUS concurs with the current judge.

[Gothmog]

3. This will be a fun opinion to read

Link to tweet

[Cha]

6. Ty Rt!!

[Prof.Higgins]

4. In the words of F. F. Coppola, it's "with extreme prejudice"! nt

[Cha]

5. "No evidence" 'cause they're making

up shit out of the trump Swamp's empty Orange Blob head.

[Roland99]

8. YES

[Gothmog]

9. Breaking: In Total Loss for Trump Campaign in Its Most Major Remaining Election Case, Federal Court

Prof. Hasen is having fun https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118942

In a total loss the the Trump campaign, a federal district court in Pennsylvania has dismissed the most serious case brought by the campaign and denied the campaign a motion to file an amended complaint.

The judge just excoriates this suit, which those of us in the field have called ridiculous from the start:

In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.

That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice.

In a 37-page opinion, the court concluded:

Defendants’ motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint are granted with prejudice. Leave to amend is denied. “Among the grounds that could justify a denial of leave to amend are undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, prejudice, and futility.” Given that: (1) Plaintiffs have already amended once as of right; (2) Plaintiffs seek to amend simply in order to effectively reinstate their initial complaint and claims; and (3) the deadline for counties in Pennsylvania to certify their election results to Secretary Boockvar is November 23, 2020, amendment would unduly delay resolution of the issues. This is especially true because the Court would need to implement a new briefing schedule, conduct a second oral argument, and then decide the issues.

The court had many problems with the complaint, but this goes to the heart of the merits: “Granting Plaintiffs’ requested relief would necessarily require invalidating the ballots of every person who voted in Pennsylvania. Because this Court has no authority to take away the right to vote of even a single person, let alone millions of citizens, it cannot grant Plaintiffs’ requested relief.”