While many of the Trump suits died swiftly due to a profound lack of evidence or obvious flaws in the lawyers’ factual claims, judges used a broad array of legal grounds to nail the coffin firmly shut. Although the facts may be different in future cases, the procedural tools and theories used to scuttle the Trump cases are sure to be deployed against Democrats and civil rights groups in the coming months and years.
“There is some risk that some of these decisions that have come in post-election litigation could be bad for progressive plaintiffs going forward if you have courts choose to extend some of these doctrines towards pre-election challenges,” said Jon Greenbaum, chief counsel at the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “There is some danger in that.”
Judges tossed out nearly all of the roughly 60 suits filed by the Trump campaign and its backers for a variety of reasons and, in many instances, individual cases were dismissed on many different grounds. Some judges said the Trump campaign lacked legal standing to challenge voting procedures. Others said Trump electors or individual voters lacked standing.
Many cases were thrown out for laches — a legal principle barring untimely suits. Others were declared to be moot or precluded by ongoing litigation at the state level. At least two suits were deemed to violate the Eleventh Amendment — the constitutional provision limiting federal-court litigation against states and state officials.
“The Trump campaign and their allies weren’t working with the most skilled lawyers,” said Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt. “They weren’t paying close attention because, all of a sudden, they found out to their surprise that the courthouse doors are quite narrow. They’re only open a crack.”