On a Friday in late November, a federal appeals court in Philadelphia closed one more door on the Trump campaign's effort to overturn Pennsylvania's 2020 result, finding that its claims of fraud rested on assertion rather than evidence. The judges joined a growing chorus of courts that had heard the same charges and found them wanting, a reminder that in a republic the power to call an election unfair is not the same as the power to show it. The question left standing is whether the dispute will climb one step higher, to the Supreme Court, or whether the count that Pennsylvania certified will
Third Circuit Rejects Trump Campaign's Bid to Overturn Pennsylvania Election Results
Calling an election unfair does not make it so.
Mark
Why does this ruling stand out from the other court losses?
Mimi
Mostly because of who wrote it. Judge Bibas was appointed by Trump, and all three judges on the panel were appointed by Republican presidents.
Luke
Worth being careful there. Who appointed a judge tells us about their path to the bench, not how they decided. The reasoning is what carries the weight.
Mark
And the reasoning was what, exactly?
Mimi
That claims of unfairness need specific allegations and proof, and the campaign had neither. The court also found the claims had no merit.
Luke
The report says Giuliani offered no tangible proof during five hours of argument. That's the reporting's characterization of the hearing; I can't tell you more about what was presented from this alone.
Mark
What about the judge who called the complaint Frankenstein's Monster?
Mimi
That was Judge Brann in the lower court. He said it was haphazardly stitched together and wouldn't let Giuliani amend it a second time. The appeals court said that was justified.
Mark
Does the margin matter?
Mimi
Biden won Pennsylvania by more than 80,000 votes, and officials certified the count four days before this ruling.
Luke
And the Supreme Court is only a possibility. Nothing here says an appeal has been filed or accepted.
O Pulso
- A federal appeals court in Philadelphia has rejected the Trump campaign's latest bid to overturn Pennsylvania's election results, calling the claims without merit.
- Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee, insisted that accusations of unfairness demand specific allegations and proof, and the campaign supplied neither.
- Rudy Giuliani's five hours of argument in a lower court produced fervent claims of widespread fraud but no tangible evidence to back them.
- The ruling landed days after Pennsylvania certified Biden's win by more than 80,000 votes, leaving the campaign with a single remaining path to the Supreme Court.
On a Friday in late November, a federal appeals court in Philadelphia closed one more door on the Trump campaign's effort to overturn Pennsylvania's 2020 result, finding that its claims of fraud rested on assertion rather than evidence. The judges joined a growing chorus of courts that had heard the same charges and found them wanting, a reminder that in a republic the power to call an election unfair is not the same as the power to show it. The question left standing is whether the dispute will climb one step higher, to the Supreme Court, or whether the count that Pennsylvania certified will be the last word.
On Friday, a federal appeals court in Philadelphia turned away the latest effort by President Donald Trump's campaign to challenge the results of the election in Pennsylvania. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the campaign had offered no evidence of fraud, and it joined other courts in calling the claims meritless.
Judge Stephanos Bibas, a former law professor and a Trump appointee, wrote for a three-judge panel that all of its members were appointed by Republican presidents. His opinion was blunt: free elections are the lifeblood of democracy, but calling an election unfair does not make it so. Such charges require specific allegations and proof, and the campaign provided neither.
The appeal followed a lower-court hearing where Rudy Giuliani argued for hours that the vote had been marred by widespread fraud, without producing tangible proof. Judge Matthew Brann had already dismissed the case, describing the complaint as haphazardly stitched together, and he refused to let it be amended again.
The ruling came four days after Pennsylvania certified Biden's victory by more than 80,000 votes. What comes next is whether Trump takes the fight to the Supreme Court, the only step remaining in this line of litigation.
On Friday, a federal appeals court in Philadelphia turned away the latest attempt by President Donald Trump's campaign to challenge the results of the election in Pennsylvania. The ruling leaves one door open: if Trump chooses to appeal, the case could go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals joined a string of other courts in reaching the same conclusion. The campaign, the judges found, had offered no evidence of election fraud, and its claims had no merit.
Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote the opinion for a three-judge panel. He is a former law school professor and a Trump appointee. His words were direct: free, fair elections are the lifeblood of democracy, and charges of unfairness are serious, but calling an election unfair does not make it so. Such charges, he wrote, require specific allegations and then proof. In his words, the campaign had neither.
The appeal grew out of a case argued the week before in a lower court by Rudy Giuliani, the president's lawyer. Over five hours of oral arguments, Giuliani insisted that the 2020 presidential election in Pennsylvania had been marred by widespread fraud. He did not, however, offer any tangible proof of it in court.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann had already dismissed the case. He described the campaign's complaint, which was full of errors, as being like Frankenstein's Monster, haphazardly stitched together. He also refused to let Giuliani amend it a second time. On appeal, the 3rd Circuit called that refusal justified.
The composition of the panel matters to the picture. All three judges were appointed by Republican presidents.
The decision came four days after Pennsylvania officials certified the state's vote count for President-elect Joe Biden. Biden defeated Trump in the state by more than 80,000 votes.
What to watch next is whether the Trump campaign takes the case to the Supreme Court, the only remaining step in this line of litigation.
Citações Notáveis
Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.— Judge Stephanos Bibas, 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Quer a matéria completa?
Leia o original em News18 ↗
Politics & Governance