In direct response to Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar and the 2020 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania, the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign launched numerous lawsuits contesting the purview of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the election processes of Pennsylvania. All of these were either dismissed or dropped.
The lawsuits filed after Election day were Bognet et al. v. Boockvar et al. and Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar et al.. Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar et al. was dismissed without comment by the Supreme Court on February 22, 2021. On April 19, 2021, more than five months after the November 3, 2020 election, the Supreme Court declined to hear the outstanding case brought by former Republican congressional candidate Jim Bognet, dismissing it without comment.
Summary of lawsuits +Pennsylvania post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential electionFirst filing dateCaseCourtDocket no(s)OutcomeCommentsReferencesBognet v. BoockvarU.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania3:20-cv-215DismissedDismissed without comment by the Supreme Court on February 22, 2021Also called Bognet v. Secretary Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Asked a federal court to overturn the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision allowing the receipt of ballots after Election Day. Dismissed by the District Court, appealed to 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals; dismissed, and appealed to the Supreme Court which dismissed it without comment on February 22, 2021 Donald J. Trump for President v. BoockvarU.S. District Court for the Middle District of PennsylvaniaNo. 20-3371; No. 20-3384 (3rd Cir.) 4:20-CV-02078DismissedTrump Campaign lawsuit filed against Democratic counties in Pennsylvania. The suit challenged the results of the election and asked the court to prohibit the certification of results. The Trump campaign filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on November 22, 2020. Judge Stephanos Bibas released a sharply-worded legal opinion on November 27, which stated: "Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here." in regard to the allegation that the "...District Court abused its discretion in not letting the Campaign amend its complaint a second time."Donald J. Trump for President v. Philadelphia Cty. Bd. of ElectionsU.S. District Court for the Eastern District of PennsylvaniaCiv. No. 20-5533DroppedLawsuit about the number of poll watchers. After the parties to the lawsuit agreed to allow 60 observers each from the Democratic and Republican parties, the court dismissed the lawsuit in light of this agreement and denied the emergency injunction motion without prejudice as it was moot.Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar and Cty. Bds. of ElectionsPennsylvania Commonwealth Court602-MD-2020RuledThe court concluded that Kathy Boockvar, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, lacked statutory authority to prolong the deadline for proof of identification and ordered for such segregated ballots not to be counted. Dispositive RulingDonald J. Trump for President v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of ElectionsPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery CountyNO. 2020-18680, C-48-CV-2020-6915Denied and appeal withdrawnA petition to compel the Montgomery County Board of Elections to stop counting mail-in-ballots. November 13, 2020, petition was denied and the Montgomery County Board of Elections was ordered to count the 592 ballots. The decision was appealed 3 days later on November 16, but the appeal was withdrawn later that day.Donald J. Trump for President v. Bucks Cty. Bd. of ElectionsPennsylvania Commonwealth Court1191 CD 2020DismissedIn re: Canvass of Absentee and Mail-In Ballots of November 3, 2020, Gen. ElectionPennsylvania Supreme Court; Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County31 EAP 2020, 32 EAP 2020, 33 EAP 2020, 34 EAP 2020, 35 EAP 2020; 20110894, 20110895, 20110896, 20110897,
20110898DismissedTransferred to Pennsylvania Supreme Court; appealedDismissed without comment by the Supreme Court on February 22, 2021November 3, 2020In re: Canvassing ObservationPennsylvania Supreme Court Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County30EAP2020 (S.C. of PA) 1094CD2020 (PA Commw. Ct) 2020Pa.LEXIS5879 2020WL6737895RuledOn November 3, 2020, the Trump campaign filed a complaint alleging that their poll watchers could not see or had meaningful access to the ballots. Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County denied the oral petition on grounds that the witness provided could "observe the opening and sorting of ballots". The Trump campaign appealed to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court and the decision was reversed on the grounds that all poll watchers "be permitted to observe all aspects of the canvassing process within 6 feet, while adhering to all COVID-19 protocols, including, wearing masks and maintaining social distancing."
State officials appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which reversed the Commonwealth Court's decision because the statutes did not set minimum distances for observers.
The Trump campaign appealed to the United States Supreme Court on December 20, 2020, but this was dismissed without comment. Pirkle v. WolfU.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania4:20-cv-02088-MWBDismissedAttempt to block all votes from Philadelphia, Montgomery, Delaware and Allegheny Counties from being included in the state total. Consolidated with Donald J. Trump for President v. Philadelphia County Board of Elections (4:20-CV-02078).Hamm v. BoockvarPennsylvania Commonwealth Court600 MD 2020RuledWhether guidance issued by the secretary of state allowing voters who cast defective ballots to re-vote is illegal. The trial court ordered remedied ballots to be segregated pending further proceedings. Dispositive RulingBarnette v. LawrenceU.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania2:20-cv-05477-PBTDismissedZiccarelli v. Allegheny County Board of ElectionsPennsylvania Supreme Court; Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court; Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County1162 CD 2020 (Penn. Commonw. Ct.); GD 20-011654Dismissed after appealOn November 18, 2020, the state's Court of Common Pleas denied the plaintiffs request, ordering the votes to be counted. On November 19, 2020, after appeal, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court reversed the Court of Common Pleas decision and ruled that the 2,349 ballots in question should not be counted.
On November 23, 2020, after appeal, Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Commonwealth Court and affirmed the decision of the state's Court of Common Pleas reinstating the decision of the Allegheny County Board of Elections to count 2,349 ballots.In re: Motion for Injunctive Relief of Northampton Cty. Republican CommitteePennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton CountyC-48-CV-2020-6915DismissedCourt denied oral motion.Kelly v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Commonwealth CourtNo. 20A98 (US Supreme Ct.) 68 MAP 2020 (PA Supreme Ct.) 620 MD 2020 (PA Commonw. Ct.)DeniedPlaintiffs asked to stop certification of election results, challenging the legality of no-excuse mail-in ballots. Lower court granted request; Pennsylvania appealed to state's supreme Court. State Supreme Court dismissed the case. Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States and an application for injunctive relief was filed to Justice Alito. The court "without comment" denied the case on December 8, 2020.Supreme Court rejects GOP bid to halt Biden's Pennsylvania win, Chicago Sun-TimesDonald J. Trump for President v. BoockvarUS Supreme CourtDismissedDismissed without comment by the Supreme Court on February 22, 2021Supreme Court appeal of multiple Pennsylvania lawsuits, dismissed without comment on February 22, 2021
Barnette v. Lawrence On November 4, 2020, 4th congressional district candidate Kathy Barnette sued Montgomery County officials in federal district court. Barnette claimed the county's board of elections violated the state's election code by inspecting ballot envelopes for missing information, a process known as pre-canvassing, and by giving voters a chance to correct such deficiencies. Barnett also claimed that the federal equal protection clause was violated because only certain voters were allowed the chance to cure. Barnette asked the county to reject any affected ballots. On November 6, Judge Timothy J. Savage denied the plaintiffs' request.
Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar
U.S. District Court case Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar is a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court on November 9 by the Trump campaign against Democratic counties in Pennsylvania. The campaign challenged the results of the election, alleging and asked the court to prohibit the certification of results. The Ohio-based Porter Wright Morris & Arthur law firm that represented the Trump campaign withdrew from the case on November 13, and Linda A. Kerns, a Republican attorney also representing the Trump campaign, asked the judge for permission to withdraw from the case on November16. Overall, the case saw three different sets of lawyers within a week.
When the judge asked Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, on why the plaintiffs did not advance legal claims based on voter fraud, Giuliani replied that "this is not a fraud case". Giuliani had previously made public claims of "fraud", "absolute fraud" in the election. Fellow Trump lawyer Linda Kerns also agreed that this lawsuit was not based on "allegations of fraud or misconduct".
Judge Matthew W. Brann dismissed the case with prejudice on November21, citing "strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations", noting that "[i]n 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... [o]ur people, laws and institutions demand more". He likened the Trump team argument to "Frankenstein's Monster", and characterized the requested remedy to disqualify nearly seven million votes as "unhinged from the underlying right being asserted".
Appeals Court case The Trump campaign and other plaintiffs filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on November22. In their revised brief, the campaign asked that the election be decertified and they be permitted to take a sample consisting of 1.5 million mail ballots to determine how many were defective, and deduct those votes from Biden's total.
On November 27, a three-judge panel for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump campaign's attempt to undo Pennsylvania's vote certification, with the judges ruling that the Trump campaign's "claims have no merit." The panel stated that the Trump campaign was challenging far fewer ballots than Biden's margin of victory, and "it never claims fraud or that any votes were cast by illegal voters."
The panel praised the District Court for being "fast, fair, patient" in handling this case. It ruled that the District Court was correct in preventing the Trump campaign from conducting a second amendment of its complaint. The proposed amendment had not changed the fact that the Trump campaign had not alleged that it was being treated worse than the Biden campaign, stated the panel. Overall, "calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here", stated the panel.