Federal Judge Dismisses Trump Campaign's Pennsylvania Suit Seeking to Invalidate Millions of Votes

On Saturday, November 21, U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann of the Middle District of Pennsylvania turned down the Trump campaign's request for an injunction in its Pennsylvania lawsuit, dismissing a case that asked the court to invalidate millions of votes. The ruling was a major setback for President Donald Trump's effort to challenge the November 3 election, which Democrat Joe Biden won.

Brann wrote that the campaign had offered "strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations that were unsupported by evidence." The source reporting refers to the judge as a woman in places and as the author of the opinion in others; the opinion itself is quoted at length. In it, the judge wrote that such a defect could not justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of the nation's sixth most populous state, adding that the people, laws and institutions of the country demand more.

The scale of the request was central to the opinion. The campaign had asked the court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters, and the judge said the court could find no case in which a plaintiff had sought so drastic a remedy in an election contest, measured by the sheer number of votes it asked to throw out. A plaintiff seeking such an outcome, the opinion said, might be expected to arrive armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, leaving the court no option but to grant relief despite its effect on so many citizens. That, the judge found, was not what the campaign had brought.

The suit, filed earlier this month, had asked the court to order the Pennsylvania Department of State not to certify the state's presidential results. Its complaint centered on mail ballot declarations: some counties contacted voters and let them fix mistakes, while others did not. Brann rejected those arguments. Biden leads in Pennsylvania, a battleground with 20 electoral college votes, by more than 81,000 votes. The source also notes that the judge had said days earlier of receiving harassing phone calls.

Rudy Giuliani, the president's attorney, and Jenna Ellis, senior legal adviser to the campaign, issued a joint statement saying they disagreed with the opinion but were thankful the "Obama-appointed judge" had ruled quickly rather than running out the clock. They said that speed helps the campaign's strategy of reaching the U.S. Supreme Court swiftly, and that they would seek an expedited appeal to the Third Circuit.

They also asserted that Democrats had denied the campaign a chance to present 50 witnesses and other evidence, and that election officials ignored Pennsylvania law on independent review, resulting in 682,777 ballots being cast illegally. Those figures are the campaign lawyers' claims; the judge found the allegations unsupported by evidence. Giuliani and Ellis also framed the outcome as part of "Big Tech, Big Media, Corrupt Democrat censorship," and said they were disappointed not to have had a hearing to present their evidence.

The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which intervened in the case, welcomed the ruling. Its president and executive director, Kristen Clarke, said it should "put the nail in the coffin" on further attempts by Trump to use federal courts to rewrite the election outcome. She said the court could not have been clearer about the baseless nature of the claims, and that voters had overcome tremendous obstacles to be heard.

Reggie Shuford, executive director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said the court saw through attempts by Trump and his enablers in Washington and Harrisburg to interfere with democracy, and that it was time to put the election behind the state.

What comes next is the Third Circuit. The campaign says it will seek an expedited appeal, with the Supreme Court as its stated goal, while Biden's lead of more than 81,000 votes stands.