Thread by @chrisgeidner

🚨 Trump PA Case Dismissed: "this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations... this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state." courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

More from Rick here —>

https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1330291262776340481

I'm going through it now, but, yeah, Judge Brann is — appropriately — QUITE unhappy with the Trump campaign's litigation here. (This was the Rudy argument, although there also were [similarly bad] brief filings as well.)

After going through the facts and the procedural posture — noting all of the counsel changes for the Trump campaign — Brann gets to the legal issues, which somehow went even worse for the Trump team, from the get-go.

Never a good sign when the judge says, "The Court will thus analyze Plaintiffs’ claims as if they had been raised properly ..."

Standing, for non-lawyers, is whether you can bring the lawsuit. In the simplest terms, you need to be able to show a specific injury that you suffered — as in, not a general injury that everyone could claim — that will be able to be addressed by your lawsuit. Here's Brann:

This was clear from the hearing, but Brann knocks out the idea that voters can sue *another* county or the sec of state because *their* county chose not to allow them to cure an error with their ballots.

LOL. Judge Brann used almost the same language later in the opinion.

This really sums it up: "[T]he answer to invalidated ballots is not to invalidate millions more."

Oh my god.

"The standing inquiry as to the Trump Campaign is particularly nebulous because neither in the FAC nor in its briefing does the Trump Campaign clearly assert what its alleged injury is."

IMAGINE A JUDGE TELLING YOU THIS!

After not finding standing for the Trump campaign, Brann drops a footnote to address the other elements.

Then, Brann considers how he would have ruled on the merits claims: "Even if Plaintiffs had standing, they fail to state an equal-protection claim." As to the individual plaintiffs who lived elsewhere in counties without vote-curing procedures ...

"[T]hey ask the Court to violate the rights of over 6.8 million Americans. It is not in the power of this Court to violate the Constitution."

The "one" in italics is judge-speak for, "So, you think this is as weak as I do. Good to know."

After finding no standing and finding that the merits claims would fail anyway, Judge Brann dismisses the case "with prejudice," meaning they can't try again, and denies their request to further amend their complaint.

Here's the formal order dismissing the case, from which the Trump team *could* appeal. (But it would be quite a steep hill to try to appeal *this* opinion.) courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

For reference, here was my thread on the argument:

https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1328776486267052032