Thread by @alanfeuer

NEW: A Trump appointed federal judge in Milwaukee has dismissed with prejudice the Trump campaign's attempt to overturn Wisconsin's election.

Judge Brett Ludwig, following an almost daylong hearing on Thursday, has tossed the last current federal case w/the Trump campaign as the named plaintiff.
He starts his order by saying, "This is an extraordinary case."

This case is significant b/c Judge Ludwig considered it ON THE MERITS & ruled against Trump.
Trump has been complaining that courts have been tossing his cases on threshold issues like standing.
But one of his own appointees here gave him a full hearing and still dismissed.

Even more this case echoes the Texas SCOTUS case in many ways. It makes similar claims & arguments & asks for similar relief.
SCOTUS did not consider the Texas on the merits but this case, decided on the merits, is something like the next best thing.

In fact, Ludwig, breaking from other judges, finds that Trump DOES have standing to challenge how WI's state election laws were implemented.
But Ludwig rules against him anyhow.

In another big break w/federal judges around the country, Ludwig rules that the 11th amendment's usual ban on suing state officials for state law actions doesn't apply here.

More new ground for Judge Ludwig.
Even though WI has already certified its vote, he rules that Trump's claims are not moot.
Why?
The final determination of who will be president won't happen until Jan. 6.

Money line (see photo.)
Trump's theory was that state elections officials disobeyed the WI legislature by loosening the way absentee ballots were handled this year. They used drop boxes, made it easier to certify absentees, etc.
Ludwig didn't buy the theory.

Ludwig's reasoning is that WI state law says electors should be chosen by popular vote.
Everything is more or less a detail.
If elections officials set up drop boxes for absentee ballots, they're still following the law--they're just tweaking the implementation.

NEW: These words from a Milwaukee federal judge, appointed by Trump, should put to rest the notion that courts have not considered the president's election complaints on the merits.

"This court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits."

In sum, this is both a huge defeat for the president but also eats away at many of the threshold arguments that lawyers have used all month in beating back legal assaults on the election.
It is thus a mixed bag in many ways and sets questionable precedents.

Here is a blow-by-blow thread of the hearing on Thursday in this case which has more than anyone could ever possibly want to know about it.

https://twitter.com/alanfeuer/status/1337044387839287297

For those of you wondering if this suit in Milwaukee was essentially an attempt to declare the rules of the election illegal AFTER the election took place, the answer is: Yes.