Good morning again, followers of post-election litigation - all kinds of news this morning.

The orders list from the Supreme Court is out, and there's quite a few election-related cases on it. The tl:dr is that SCOTUS isn't getting into the fray at this late date.
This, of course, should come as a total and complete surprise to absolutely nobody who has been paying attention, with one possible exception.

That would be the case involving the PA S.Ct's extension of ballot deadlines, which is the one non-frivolous one before the court.
To review: the PA Supreme Court ruled, despite the plain text of the PA election laws, that other provisions of the PA Constitution required extending the ballot receipt deadline by a week due to the pandemic.
The legal issue is whether that was permissible given the Art II, Sec 1, Cl 2 of the Constitution, which says that the legislature gets to decide how electors are chosen. That case is the one that resulted in those late votes not being counted.
The Court relisted that case for discussion several times and has now denied cert. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented from the denial; their dissents are at the end of the orders list.…
The Supreme Court's general rule is that it takes four to grant cert, so we can safely assume that they were the only ones to dissent from the denial of cert.
A number of other election-related petitions were denied without comment.

Kelly v PA is the case where a number of PA GOPers decided the mail-in ballot law they passed was really unconstitutional.

20-845 is the one where Trump tried to consolidate like 4 other cases.
King v Whitmer is, of course, the Michigan Kraken.

Not seeing the other Kraken tentacles on the list, but the procedural status on those cases is so thoroughly borked that I've got no idea if they were conferenced.

And I honestly DGAF enough to waste more time looking.
Other denials include Wood's case from GA, Kelli Ward's AZ challenge, and Trump's WI challenge.
No election-related case appears in the section of the list labeled "Certiorari Granted."


(And so are all the above-mentioned cases.)
I looked through the dissents. As many many others are noting, Justice Thomas was a bit hackish this time, even compared to normal. This is likely why Alito and Gorsuch didn't join his dissent.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Mike Dunford

Mike Dunford Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @questauthority

23 Feb
Good morning, people unable to look away from slow-motion trainwrecks.

There is a new filing in the In re Gondor case. According to the docket, it's been filed as a "Response to Motion." This seems impossible; I've got no idea what the hell is going on here.
For the nonlawyers:
The docket still does not show that any lawyer has showed up to represent any of the 600+ people that were named as defendants. And that's kind of a thing you'd really expect to see before any response is filed.
Anyway, give me just a minute or so - I'm going to get my tea and dig in. Trying to assess something new in a case before the caffeine is fully onboard would usually be risky, but in this case nothing makes anything make more sense, so I might as well read while I have my tea.
Read 61 tweets
22 Feb
Oh my --

There's been a letter to the court filed in Latinos for Trump v Reality Itself (the In re Gondor case). And it's...

...well, it's everything you might expect from something filed in this case.

Buckle up - this is a short but wild ride.…
It appears that "B.G." who is the not-very-hard-to-identify-but-still-wishing-to-proceed-anonymously "Latinos for Trump President" would like the court to provide them with "some time to obtain legal co-counsel certified in Federal Court of the Western District of Texas [sic]"
Now the first question that comes to my mind when I read this is why in the name of all things holy, mundane, and profane is this letter being submitted by "B.G."?????

Latinos for Trump still has counsel in this case - Seditionist SoRelle was admitted pro hac vice.
Read 6 tweets
22 Feb
Good morning, followers of post-election litigation:

Yes, I've seen Dominion's latest defamation case. I've also taken a quick look at the complaint. No way do I have the time to do a thread on the 115 pages, but I've got some preliminary thoughts:…
First, something that immediately caught my eye but which I don't see getting as much attention in the articles I've seen:

Mike Lindell isn't the lead defendant.

MyPillow is.
This is a very interesting choice. Dominion is claiming that Lindell's actions were on behalf of his company, and attributable to the company.

That argument is...not weak.
Read 14 tweets
19 Feb
Good afternoon, followers of frivolous performative litigation - I've had caffeine, I've hit my writing goals for the week, so let's see if we can unravel what the everloving hell is going on with In re Gondor.
To review the current state of affairs:

The docket in this case shows that the following documents have been filed:
1: A complaint.
2: A motion for temporary restraining order.
3: A motion by SoRelle to appear pro hac vice.
4: An amended TRO motion…
5: An amended proposed form of TRO
6: A declaration by Davis
7: A supplement to the amended TRO
8: Another amended TRO
9: An order to show cause
10: A First Amended Complaint
11: A response to the order to show cause
12: A "First Amended Class Action Complaint"
Read 20 tweets
16 Feb
In today's "you've absolutely got to be kidding me" news, there is apparently a *Second* Amended Complaint in the In re Gondor case (Latinos for Trump v All Members of the 117th Congress et al).

Because this is hell, and nor am I out of it.…
It's styled as a "First Amended Class Action Complaint" because of course it is.…
Apparently @SollenbergerRC is no longer a defendant but will be a defendant again someday, following the "traditional filing of a Fourth Amended Complaint."

I'm not kidding.
Read 4 tweets
15 Feb
*keeps hands in lap*

I think that Officer Sicknick's family should do what they think is best for their family, based both on competent advice from counsel and their own internal discussions.

I do not think they have any obligation to engage in politically-charged litigation.
One of my civil procedure professors described the average lawsuit as "a swirling mass of human pain." A wrongful death lawsuit against Trump would take that well beyond that norm.

It would be an intensely complex case that would likely take a minimum of 3-5 years to resolve.
The case would involve several constitutional issues including First Amendment concerns, and even if all those issues resolved in favor of the family, a win would be far from assured.

What would be assured is that the case will continue to periodically rip off emotional scabs.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!