Read Trump v. Biden.

The majority found most of the claims were barred by laches. “he Campaign’s delay in raising these issues was unreasonable in the extreme, and the resulting prejudice to the election officials, other candidates, voters of the affected counties, and to voters statewide, is obvious and immense. Laches is more than appropriate here; the Campaign is not entitled to the
relief it seeks.”

“Our decision that the Campaign is not entitled to the relief it seeks does not mean the legal issues presented are foreclosed from further judicial scrutiny. Wisconsin law provides sufficient mechanisms for challenging unlawful WEC guidance or unlawful municipal election practices. Nothing in our decision denying relief to the Campaign would affect the right of another party to raise substantive challenges.”

Justice Hagedorn, who wrote the majority opinion, also wrote a separate opinion expressing views on some of the claims that the court did not need to reach given the laches holding.

The three separate dissents from the three dissenters reach the merits to say that some of the challenges brought by the Trump campaign were meritorious, but they do not say what the remedy should be, and do not weigh in on whether to throw out the votes and award the results to Trump. Very odd to not say what the remedy should be.

This is very odd. If in fact there were illegalities in how the election was run, how could the dissenters not say what they think the remedy should be?

[This post has been updated.]