Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election

Both before and after the election, the campaign for incumbent president Donald Trump filed a number of lawsuits contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in multiple states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. Many cases were quickly dismissed, and lawyers and other observers noted that the lawsuits are not likely to have an effect on the outcome of the election.{{cite web|last1=Tillman|first1=Zoe|date=November 5, 2020|title=Judges Are Rejecting Trump's False Claims Of Shady Poll Practices After Looking At The Evidence|url=https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/trump-false-claims-election-judges-reject-court-challenges|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201116052249/https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/trump-false-claims-election-judges-reject-court-challenges|archive-date=November 16, 2020|access-date=November 11, 2020|publisher=BuzzFeed News}}{{cite news|date=November 7, 2020|title=Courting failure: Donald Trump still hopes lawsuits will make up for his lack of votes|url=https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/11/07/donald-trump-still-hopes-lawsuits-will-make-up-for-his-lack-of-votes|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201116052231/https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/11/07/donald-trump-still-hopes-lawsuits-will-make-up-for-his-lack-of-votes|archive-date=November 16, 2020|access-date=November 12, 2020|newspaper=The Economist}} Trump, his supporters, and his attorneys asserted widespread election fraud in public statements.{{Cite web|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-cries-election-fraud-in-court-his-lawyers-dont-11605271267|title=Trump Cries Voter Fraud. In Court, His Lawyers Don't.|first1=Byron|last1=Tau|first2=Sara|last2=Randazzo|date=November 13, 2020|newspaper=The Wall Street Journal|access-date=November 22, 2020|archive-date=November 21, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201121152817/https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-cries-election-fraud-in-court-his-lawyers-dont-11605271267|url-status=live}}{{Cite news |first=Tessa |last=Berenson |date=November 20, 2020 |url=https://time.com/5914377/donald-trump-no-evidence-fraud/ |title=In Court, Trump's Lawyers Aren't Claiming 'Massive' Fraud |magazine=Time |access-date=November 22, 2020 |archive-date=November 21, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201121204828/https://time.com/5914377/donald-trump-no-evidence-fraud/ |url-status=live }}{{Cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/18/us/politics/trump-giuliani-voter-fraud.html|title=Giuliani in Public: 'It's a Fraud.' Giuliani in Court: 'This Is Not a Fraud Case.'|first=Lisa|last=Lerer|date=November 19, 2020|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=November 20, 2020|archive-date=November 20, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201120091727/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/18/us/politics/trump-giuliani-voter-fraud.html|url-status=live}}{{cite news|first=Nomaan|last=Merchant|url=https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-politics-lawsuits-elections-a508ebaafae82286c69eb091b75abdfc|title=Trump's election lawsuits plagued by elementary errors|date=November 19, 2020|website=AP News |access-date=November 22, 2020 |archive-date=November 22, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201122061856/https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-politics-lawsuits-elections-a508ebaafae82286c69eb091b75abdfc|url-status=live}}

The Trump campaign suffered several setbacks on November 13, 2020. The Department of Homeland Security released a statement saying that the election was the "most secure in American history" and that there was no evidence any voting systems malfunctioned. Sixteen federal prosecutors assigned to monitor the election sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr saying there was no evidence of widespread irregularities. A law firm hired by the campaign in Pennsylvania quit amidst concerns they were being used to undermine the electoral process. The campaign dropped its "Sharpiegate" lawsuit in Arizona. A judge in Wayne County, Michigan, refused to halt the vote count or certification of the winner. In Pennsylvania, judges refused to block 8,927 mail-in votes in Montgomery and Philadelphia counties.{{cite news |last1=Feuer |first1=Alan |date=November 14, 2020 |title=Trump Loses String of Election Results Lawsuits |newspaper=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/13/us/politics/trump-loses-election-lawsuits.html |url-status=live |access-date=November 15, 2020 |archive-date=December 22, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201222013353/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/13/us/politics/trump-loses-election-lawsuits.html }}

Four lawsuits orchestrated by conservative lawyer James Bopp in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania were dropped on November 16 after a federal appellate court said voters could not bring some constitutional claims.{{cite news|last1=Polantz|first1=Katelyn|date=November 16, 2020|title=Lawsuits that tried to disrupt Biden's wins in four states are withdrawn|work=CNN|url=https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/16/politics/lawsuits-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin-georgia/index.html |url-status=live|access-date=November 16, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201118210600/https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/16/politics/lawsuits-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin-georgia/index.html|archive-date=November 18, 2020}} Sidney Powell was dropped as a lawyer for the Trump campaign on November 22,{{Cite web |agency=Associated Press|date=November 23, 2020|title=Trump campaign cuts ties with attorney Sidney Powell after bizarre election fraud claims|url=http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/23/trump-campaign-cuts-ties-with-attorney-sidney-powell-after-bizarre-election-claims|access-date=November 27, 2020|website=The Guardian|archive-date=November 27, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201127113339/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/23/trump-campaign-cuts-ties-with-attorney-sidney-powell-after-bizarre-election-claims|url-status=live}} and was operating independently on November 23.{{cite web|date=November 23, 2020|title=Sidney Powell: Trump team cuts ties with lawyer who made voter fraud claims|website=BBC News|archive-date=December 22, 2020|access-date=December 8, 2020|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-55040756|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201222013330/https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-55040756}}

By November 27, 2020, more than thirty of the legal challenges filed since Election Day had failed;{{Cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/21/us/politics/pennsylvania-trump-court-ballots.html|title=Judge Dismisses Trump Lawsuit Seeking to Delay Certification in Pennsylvania|first=Alan|last=Feuer|date=November 22, 2020|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=November 22, 2020|archive-date=November 22, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201122022638/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/21/us/politics/pennsylvania-trump-court-ballots.html|url-status=live}} by December 14, 2020, over fifty lawsuits had been dismissed.{{Citation needed|date=March 2025}}

Federal judges in Georgia and Michigan rejected last-ditch efforts by pro-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell to overturn the election results on December 7, 2020.{{Cite web|url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sidney-powell-kraken-lawsuit-dismissed-georgia-michigan|title=Sidney Powell 'Kraken' lawsuit dismissed in Georgia after defeat in Michigan|first=Ronn|last=Blitzer|date=December 7, 2020|website=Fox News|access-date=December 7, 2020|archive-date=December 22, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201222013326/https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sidney-powell-kraken-lawsuit-dismissed-georgia-michigan|url-status=live}} United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Judge Linda Parker wrote, "[T]his lawsuit seems to be less about achieving the relief Plaintiffs seek—as much of that relief is beyond the power of this Court—and more about the impact of their allegations on People's faith in the democratic process and their trust in our government." In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge Timothy Batten wrote, "They want this court to substitute its judgment for two-and-a-half million voters who voted for Joe Biden... And this I am unwilling to do."{{cite news |last1=Cheney |first1=Kyle |last2=Gerstein |first2=Josh |title=Federal judges reject GOP effort to overturn swing state election results |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/07/judge-rejects-overturn-michigan-election-results-443411 |access-date=December 7, 2020 |work=Politico |date=December 7, 2020 |language=en |archive-date=December 22, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201222013414/https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/07/judge-rejects-overturn-michigan-election-results-443411 |url-status=live }}

Judges who were nominated by Trump also dismissed the claims and reliefs made by the Trump campaign in the courtrooms.{{Cite news|last=Alexander|first=Harriet|date=December 13, 2020|title=Trump-appointed judges among 86 who have so far dismissed election fraud law suits|language=en-GB|work=The Telegraph|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/13/trump-appointed-judges-among-86-have-far-dismissed-election/|access-date=December 14, 2020|issn=0307-1235|archive-date=December 13, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201213193849/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/13/trump-appointed-judges-among-86-have-far-dismissed-election/|url-status=live}}

Voting machine companies Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic threatened legal action, claiming that they were defamed by lawyers for Trump and right-wing media companies Fox, Newsmax, and OAN, who propounded conspiracy theories about the election technology companies.{{cite web|last1=Smith|first1=Ben|title=The 'Red Slime' Lawsuit That Could Sink Right-Wing Media |date=December 20, 2020 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/20/business/media/smartmatic-lawsuit-fox-news-newsmax-oan.html|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201221121407/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/20/business/media/smartmatic-lawsuit-fox-news-newsmax-oan.html|archive-date=December 21, 2020|access-date=December 21, 2020|website=The New York Times}} On December 18, 2020, lawyers for the Trump campaign told employees to preserve all documents related to Sidney Powell and the Dominion Voting Systems in relation to the suits.{{cite web|first1=Kaitlan|last1=Collins|first2=Kevin|last2=Liptak|first3=Pamela|last3=Brown|title=Trump campaign told to preserve all documents related to Sidney Powell and Dominion Voting Systems |date=December 19, 2020 |url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/19/politics/trump-campaign-sidney-powell-dominion-voting-systems/index.html|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201221140236/https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/19/politics/trump-campaign-sidney-powell-dominion-voting-systems/index.html|archive-date=December 21, 2020|access-date=December 21, 2020|publisher=CNN}} Dominion sued Fox News for $1.6 billion,{{Cite news |last=McGreal |first=Chris |date=2022-12-12 |title=Is Dominion's $1.6bn defamation lawsuit a death blow for Murdoch and Fox News? |language=en-GB |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/dec/11/rupert-murdoch-fox-dominion-lawsuit-deposition |access-date=2023-02-18 |issn=0261-3077}} and in February 2023 released subpoenaed internal Fox News communications that showed several prominent network hosts and senior executives—including chairman Rupert Murdoch and CEO Suzanne Scott—discussing their knowledge that the election fraud allegations they were reporting were false. The communications showed the network was concerned that not reporting the falsehoods would alienate viewers and cause them to switch to rival conservative networks, impacting corporate profitability.

• {{cite news |title=Fox Stars Privately Expressed Disbelief About Election Fraud Claims. 'Crazy Stuff.' |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/16/business/media/fox-dominion-lawsuit.html |work=The New York Times |date=February 16, 2023|author1=Jeremy W. Peters|author2=Katie Robertson}}
• See also [https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/redacted-documents-in-dominion-fox-news-case/dca5e3880422426f/full.pdf the brief itself.]
• {{cite news |last1=Barr |first1=Jeremy |last2=Weiner |first2=Rachel |title=Fox News hosts, execs privately doubted 2020 conspiracy claims shared on air |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/02/16/fox-news-2020-lies-dominion-suit/ |access-date=19 February 2023 |newspaper=Washington Post}}
• [https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/59b93674-ba03-4bc1-94da-5e15f776fc43.pdf DOMINION’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY OF FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC AND FOX CORPORATION Dated: January 17, 2022 PUBLIC VERSION FILED ON FEBRUARY 16, 2023]

In April 2023, Dominion settled with Fox News for $787.5 million, but a related $2.7 billion lawsuit by Smartmatic, another electronic voting systems, remains unresolved.{{cite news |last1=Queen |first1=Jack |title=Fox resolves Dominion case, but a bigger election defamation lawsuit looms |url=https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/fox-resolves-dominion-case-but-a-bigger-election-defamation-lawsuit-looms/ar-AA1a2Y6Q |access-date=19 April 2023 |work=MSN |date=19 April 2023}}

Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt said "[t]here's literally nothing that I've seen yet with the meaningful potential to affect the final result".{{cite magazine |last1=Abramson |first1=Alana |last2=Abrams |first2=Abigail |title=Here Are All the Lawsuits the Trump Campaign Has Filed Since Election Day—And Why Most Are Unlikely to Go Anywhere |url=https://time.com/5908505/trump-lawsuits-biden-wins/ |magazine=Time |access-date=November 10, 2020 |date=November 9, 2020 |archive-date=November 16, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201116052204/https://time.com/5908505/trump-lawsuits-biden-wins/ |url-status=live }} Ohio State University election law professor Ned Foley noted "[y]ou have to have a legal claim, and you have to have evidence to back it up. And that's just not there."{{cite web |last1=Parks |first1=Miles |title=Trump Election Lawsuits Have Mostly Failed. Here's What They Tried |url=https://www.npr.org/2020/11/10/933112418/the-trump-campaign-has-had-almost-no-legal-success-this-month-heres-what-they-ve |publisher=NPR |access-date=November 11, 2020 |date=November 10, 2020 |archive-date=November 16, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201116052241/https://www.npr.org/2020/11/10/933112418/the-trump-campaign-has-had-almost-no-legal-success-this-month-heres-what-they-ve |url-status=live }} University of Kentucky law professor Joshua Douglas said the lawsuits "all seem to have no merit whatsoever".{{cite web |last1=Levine |first1=Sam |title=Trump's last-ditch US election lawsuits not going well for president, experts say |work=The Guardian |access-date=November 11, 2020 |date=November 6, 2020 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/06/donald-trump-us-election-lawsuits |archive-date=November 16, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201116052234/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/06/donald-trump-us-election-lawsuits |url-status=live }} Bradley P. Moss, an attorney specializing in national security, wrote that the suits "continue to defy reason and logic, and are purely theater{{nbsp}}... It's all a farce".{{cite web |last1=Kalmbacher |first1=Colin |title='It's All a Farce': Trump Campaign Lawsuit Challenges Less Than One Percent of Biden's Arizona Ballot Lead |url=https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/its-all-a-farce-trump-campaign-challenges-less-than-one-percent-of-bidens-arizona-ballot-lead/ |publisher=Law & Crime |access-date=November 12, 2020 |date=November 10, 2020 |archive-date=November 13, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201113013932/https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/its-all-a-farce-trump-campaign-challenges-less-than-one-percent-of-bidens-arizona-ballot-lead/ |url-status=live }} University of California, Irvine election law professor Rick Hasen said there is "no evidence of fraud so far that could conceivably affect the election results".{{cite web |last1=Shubber |first1=Kadhim |title=Trump clings to courtroom hopes despite lawsuit losses |url=https://www.ft.com/content/4942e1b5-e445-476d-9d80-6b51777939a9 |work=Financial Times |access-date=November 12, 2020 |date=November 8, 2020 |archive-date=November 16, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201116052209/https://www.ft.com/content/4942e1b5-e445-476d-9d80-6b51777939a9 |url-status=live }} Barry Richard, who helped to oversee the Republican-led Florida recount effort during the 2000 election, called the lawsuits "entirely without merit" and said they "will not be successful";{{cite web |last1=Franck |first1=Thomas |title=Bush 2000 recount lawyer says Trump election suits are 'entirely without merit' |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/06/election-2020-trump-lawsuits-bush-campaign-lawyer.html |publisher=CNBC |access-date=November 12, 2020 |date=November 6, 2020 |archive-date=November 16, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201116052246/https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/06/election-2020-trump-lawsuits-bush-campaign-lawyer.html |url-status=live }} Gerry McDonough, an attorney who worked for the Gore campaign, said Trump "has no chance of overturning the result—it's just impossible".{{cite web |last1=Epstein |first1=Reid J. |title=Can Trump still win? No. He's already lost. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/article/can-trump-still-win.html |work=The New York Times |access-date=November 13, 2020 |date=November 12, 2020 |archive-date=November 16, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201116052207/https://www.nytimes.com/article/can-trump-still-win.html |url-status=live }} The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency issued a statement calling the 2020 election "the most secure in American history" and noting "[t]here is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised".{{cite web |title=Joint Statement from Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council & the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive Committees |url=https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/12/joint-statement-elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-council-election |publisher=Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency |access-date=November 13, 2020 |date=November 12, 2020 |archive-date=November 16, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201116052143/https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/12/joint-statement-elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-council-election |url-status=live }}

Jones Day, one of many law firms working for the Trump campaign and one that specifically handled Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar,{{cite web |title=Emergency application for injunction filed by Republican Party of Pennsylvania in U.S. Supreme Court |url=https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/20A84.pdf |publisher=SCOTUSblog |access-date=November 11, 2020 |date=November 6, 2020 |archive-date=November 16, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201116052249/https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/20A84.pdf |url-status=live }} faced internal criticism for its "shortsighted" efforts on litigation that "erode[s] public confidence in the election results".{{cite web |last1=Silver-Greenberg |first1=Jessica |last2=Abrams |first2=Rachel |last3=Enrich |first3=David |title=Growing Discomfort at Law Firms Representing Trump in Election Lawsuits |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/business/jones-day-trump-election-lawsuits.html |work=The New York Times |access-date=November 11, 2020 |date=November 9, 2020 |archive-date=November 16, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201116052208/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/business/jones-day-trump-election-lawsuits.html |url-status=live }}{{Cite news|last=Bazelon|first=Emily|date=November 14, 2020|title=Trump Is Not Doing Well With His Election Lawsuits. Here's a Rundown.|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/13/us/politics/trump-election-lawsuits.html|url-status=live|access-date=November 15, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201116052312/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/13/us/politics/trump-election-lawsuits.html|archive-date=November 16, 2020|issn=0362-4331}}

{{Main|Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election from Arizona|Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election from Georgia|Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election from Michigan|Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election from Nevada|Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election from Pennsylvania|Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election from Wisconsin|label 2=Georgia|label 3=Michigan|label 4=Nevada|label 5=Pennsylvania|label 6=Wisconsin}}

The Trump campaign filed the most post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election in the swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. It was a strategic decision to file lawsuits in these states that were too close to call during the night of election day and remained uncalled for a few days.

Tally showing the number of lawsuits, sorted by state, that were dropped by plaintiff before a ruling, ruled against the plaintiff or dismissed by the court: this applying to all of the lawsuits filed by Trump and his supporters. The cases indicated to be ongoing refer to Michigan Welfare Rights Org. et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al.; several cases filed against Trump and other defendants in the aftermath of the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, variously brought by members of Congress, United States Capitol Police officers, and District of Columbia Metropolitan Police officers; and two criminal cases, The State of Georgia v. Donald J. Trump, et al., a racketeering case against Trump and 18 other defendants, and United States v. Donald J. Trump, an election obstruction case. Of those cases, all but Georgia v. Trump were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The one verdict in Pennsylvania ruled initially in Trump's favor, was after appeal, reversed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court against the decision of the Commonwealth Court affirming 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. Thus making the total ruled in favor for the Trump campaign in Pennsylvania 0 and total ruled against 2.

{{main|Texas v. Pennsylvania}}

On December 8, 2020, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in order to invalidate the results of the presidential election in those states; the lawsuit was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court as it has original jurisdiction over disputes between states. Texas alleged that the four states used the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext to unconstitutionally change voting laws and increase the number of mail-in ballots.{{Cite web|last=Zilbermints|first=Regina|date=December 10, 2020|title=More than 100 House Republicans sign brief backing Texas lawsuit challenging election results|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/house/529717-100-house-republicans-sign-brief-backing-texas-suit-challenging-election|access-date=December 11, 2020|website=The Hill|language=en|archive-date=December 11, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201211020202/https://thehill.com/homenews/house/529717-100-house-republicans-sign-brief-backing-texas-suit-challenging-election|url-status=live}}

The attorneys general of Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin responded critically to the lawsuit, while Trump and seventeen Republican state attorneys general filed motions to support the case.{{cite news|url=https://www.newsweek.com/alabama-louisiana-ags-want-join-texas-election-lawsuit-against-battleground-states-1553392|title=Alabama and Louisiana AGs Want to Join Texas Election Lawsuit Against Battleground States|first=Daniel|last=Villarreal|work=Newsweek|date=December 9, 2020|access-date=December 9, 2020|archive-date=December 22, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201222013429/https://www.newsweek.com/alabama-louisiana-ags-want-join-texas-election-lawsuit-against-battleground-states-1553392|url-status=live}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2020/12/09/trump-says-hell-join-texas-lawsuit-asking-supreme-court-to-block-62-biden-electors-from-four-states/ |first=Todd J. |last=Gillman |title=17 states, and Trump, join Texas request for Supreme Court to overturn Biden wins in four states|date=December 9, 2020|website=Dallas News|access-date=December 10, 2020|archive-date=December 9, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201209212932/https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2020/12/09/trump-says-hell-join-texas-lawsuit-asking-supreme-court-to-block-62-biden-electors-from-four-states/|url-status=live}} After the office of Georgia's Attorney General Chris Carr described the lawsuit as "constitutionally, legally and factually wrong", Trump had a telephone conversation with Carr, in which he warned Carr not to rally other Republican state officials in opposition to the lawsuit.{{cite web |url=https://www.ajc.com/politics/trump-warns-georgia-ag-not-to-rally-other-republicans-against-texas-lawsuit/37ASZD4PJNENHOLVIXZHRXCIJI/ |title=Trump warns Georgia AG not to rally other Republicans against Texas lawsuit |first=Greg |last=Bluestein |website=Atlanta Journal-Constitution |date=December 9, 2020 |access-date=December 9, 2020 |archive-date=December 12, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201212082114/https://www.ajc.com/politics/trump-warns-georgia-ag-not-to-rally-other-republicans-against-texas-lawsuit/37ASZD4PJNENHOLVIXZHRXCIJI/ |url-status=live }}

On December 10, over 100 House Republicans signed an amicus brief in support of Texas, including Minority Whip Steve Scalise and the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, Jim Jordan.{{Cite web|last=Diaz|first=Daniella|title=READ: Brief from 106 Republicans supporting Texas lawsuit in Supreme Court|url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/10/politics/read-house-republicans-texas-supreme-court/index.html |date=December 11, 2020 |access-date=December 11, 2020|website=CNN|archive-date=December 12, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201212000435/https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/10/politics/read-house-republicans-texas-supreme-court/index.html|url-status=live}} That same day, the attorneys general of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin asked the Supreme Court to reject the lawsuit.{{Cite news|last1=Liptak|first1=Adam|last2=Peters|first2=Jeremy W.|date=December 11, 2020|title=In Blistering Retort, 4 Battleground States Tell Texas to Butt Out of Election|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/us/trump-election-lawsuit-states.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201211080421/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/us/trump-election-lawsuit-states.html|archive-date=December 11, 2020|issn=0362-4331}} In their briefs, the states challenged Texas' standing, and argued that the case did not belong in the high court; that Texas has no control over how other states conduct their elections; and that Texas waited too long to bring the suit.

Legal experts criticized the lawsuit and said it was unlikely to succeed.{{Cite news|last1=Peters|first1=Jeremy W.|last2=Montgomery|first2=David|last3=Qiu|first3=Linda|last4=Liptak|first4=Adam|date=December 11, 2020|title=Two reasons the Texas election case is faulty: flawed legal theory and statistical fallacy.|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/technology/texas-election-lawsuit-legality.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201211042502/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/technology/texas-election-lawsuit-legality.html|archive-date=December 11, 2020|issn=0362-4331}} Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine, and Paul Smith, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, questioned whether Texas has standing to bring the lawsuit and said the Supreme Court is unlikely to take up the case. University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck remarked, "It looks like we have a new leader in the 'craziest lawsuit filed to purportedly challenge the election' category."{{Cite web|last=Liptak|first=Adam|date=December 8, 2020|title=Texas files an audacious suit with the Supreme Court challenging the election results.|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/08/us/politics/texas-files-an-audacious-suit-with-the-supreme-court-challenging-the-election-results.html|work=The New York Times|access-date=December 9, 2020|archive-date=December 9, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201209023641/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/08/us/politics/texas-files-an-audacious-suit-with-the-supreme-court-challenging-the-election-results.html|url-status=live}}

On December 11, 2020, the Supreme Court denied the case:{{Cite news |first1=Kevin |last1=Breuninger |first2=Spencer |last2=Kimball |first3=Dan |last3=Mangan |date=December 11, 2020|title=Supreme Court rejects Texas lawsuit challenging Biden's election wins in 4 key states|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/11/supreme-court-rejects-texas-lawsuit-challenging-bidens-election-wins-in-4-key-states.html|access-date=December 11, 2020|website=CNBC|language=en|archive-date=December 11, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201211235126/https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/11/supreme-court-rejects-texas-lawsuit-challenging-bidens-election-wins-in-4-key-states.html|url-status=live}}{{cite web|title=Order in Pending Case|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf|date=December 11, 2020|publisher=Supreme Court of the United States|access-date=December 11, 2020|archive-date=December 11, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201211234004/https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf|url-status=live}}

The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, contributed an additional statement, disagreeing with the denial:

In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.{{Cite web |title=Docket for 22O155 |work=supremecourt.gov |access-date=11 December 2020 |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html |quote=The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue. |archive-date=December 9, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201209042255/https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html |url-status=live }}

{{Main|Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election from Arizona}}

Several lawsuits were filed in the state of Arizona. All of these were either dismissed or dropped.

{{Main|2020 United States presidential election in the District of Columbia|Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)}}

Black voter groups in Michigan filed suit in the District of Columbia against the Trump campaign on November{{nbsp}}20, 2020, alleging the campaign has disenfranchised Black voters through their attempts to challenge election results in Detroit, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Atlanta.{{cite news |last1=Polus |first1=Sarah |title=Michigan group sues Trump campaign for alleged mass voter suppression |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/526997-michigan-group-sues-trump-campaign-for-alleged-mass-voter-suppression |access-date=November 21, 2020 |work=The Hill |date=November 21, 2020 |language=en |archive-date=November 21, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201121132518/https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/526997-michigan-group-sues-trump-campaign-for-alleged-mass-voter-suppression |url-status=live }}{{cite web |title=Case No. 1:20-cv-03388 MICHIGAN WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION, MAUREEN TAYLOR, NICOLE HILL, and TEASHA JONES, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, and DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC. |url=https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-e895-d27b-a5f7-f895bd7a0000 |access-date=November 21, 2020 |archive-date=November 21, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201121165532/https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-e895-d27b-a5f7-f895bd7a0000 |via=politico.com |url-status=live }} In December 2022, a federal court ruled in favor of the NAACP and the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization in this case. The Court's ruling allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with filing a second amended complaint.{{cite web |title=UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MICHIGAN WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION, et al. Plaintiffs, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.Civ. Action No. 20-3388 (EGS), Defendants.|url=https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/ORDER-granting-55-Motion-for-Leave-to-File-Second-Amended-Complaint.-Signed-by-Judge-Emmet-G..pdf|date=November 28, 2022}}

A lawsuit challenging the election results of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia and Arizona was filed by the Amistad Project of the conservative Thomas More Society. Among the plaintiffs were the Wisconsin Voters Alliance. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Michigan lawmakers Matt Maddock and Daire Rendon attempted to withdraw as plaintiffs, because "what was eventually filed is very different than what was initially discussed", said Maddock.

The lawsuit named Vice President Mike Pence, Congress and the Electoral College among the defendants; however the Electoral College is not actually an entity, but a process.

The request for injunction was denied on January 4, 2021, on the basis of lack of jurisdiction, lack of standing, and because Plaintiffs "have established no likelihood of success on the merits" since the request was based on a fundamental misreading of the law. Judge James E. Boasberg also stated that "at the conclusion of this litigation, the Court will determine whether to issue an order to show cause why this matter should not be referred to its Committee on Grievances for potential discipline of Plaintiffs' counsel" due to their failure to duly notify or serve Defendants, despite reminders from the Court.[https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/federal-judge-rejects-lawsuit-seeking-to-overturn-trump-loss/article_3046fba2-ae52-5638-935f-bd29453f6d94.html Federal judge rejects lawsuit seeking to overturn Trump loss ] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210115180237/https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/federal-judge-rejects-lawsuit-seeking-to-overturn-trump-loss/article_3046fba2-ae52-5638-935f-bd29453f6d94.html |date=January 15, 2021 }}, Associated Press via Wisconsin State Journal The lawsuit was withdrawn on January 7, 2021.

Judge Amit Mehta was assigned as the judge for all three suits, and he consolidated the oral arguments for them, holding arguments on January 10, 2022, to consider whether Trump and the other defendants were immune from liability. The defendants had requested immunity on the grounds of the First Amendment, and those who were elected officials also claimed immunity based on that status. On February 18, 2022, Mehta denied the motion to dismiss some of the claims, while granting the motion to dismiss other of the claims. Trump then appealed the cases to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals on July 27, 2022, claiming absolute immunity. The Court of Appeals ruled against him on December 1, 2023, allowing the civil suits to proceed.{{Cite web |last=Jansen |first=Bart |date=December 1, 2023 |title=Donald Trump isn't immune from lawsuits over Jan. 6 Capitol attack: appeals court |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/12/01/donald-trump-jan-6-capitol-riot-lawsuits-appeals-court/71766451007/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231201213645/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/12/01/donald-trump-jan-6-capitol-riot-lawsuits-appeals-court/71766451007/ |archive-date=December 1, 2023 |access-date=January 16, 2023 |website=USA Today}}

This is an ongoing federal criminal case regarding Donald Trump's alleged participation in attempts to overturn the 2020 U.S. presidential election, including his involvement in the January 6 Capitol attack.

{{Main|Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election from Georgia|Georgia election racketeering prosecution}}

Several civil lawsuits were filed in Georgia after the election. All of these were either dismissed or dropped.{{Cite news|title=Judge allows self-described anti-fraud group to review Georgia ballots|last=Harte|first=Julia|url=https://www.reuters.com/business/legal/judge-allows-self-described-anti-fraud-group-review-georgia-ballots-2021-05-21|work=Reuters|date=May 21, 2021}}{{Cite web|title=Superior Court of Fulton County Georgia|url=https://publicrecordsaccess.fultoncountyga.gov/app/RegisterOfActions/#/33974C4827BAD854BB20FC16AD469EDB36FE1BE5465F62DFCD7F5F2F784C176FF1C4E91E2012B31ECE152FB9AA0E16C1/anon/portalembed|website=publicrecordsaccess.fultoncountyga.gov}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/13/politics/judge-dismisses-ballot-review-case-georgia/index.html|title=Judge dismisses Fulton County ballot review case in Georgia|author=Sara Murray and Rachel Janfaza|website=CNN|date=October 13, 2021 }}

On August 14, 2023, a Georgia grand jury indicted Trump and 18 other defendants in a criminal election racketeering case.{{Cite news |last1=Bailey |first1=Holly |last2=Gardner |first2=Amy |date=August 14, 2023 |title=Trump charged in Georgia 2020 election probe, his fourth indictment |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/14/trump-indictment-georgia-election-2020/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230815030158/https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/14/trump-indictment-georgia-election-2020/ |archive-date=August 15, 2023 |access-date=January 8, 2024 |newspaper=The Washington Post}} This case is ongoing.

{{Main|Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election from Michigan}}

Several lawsuits were filed in Michigan after the election. All of these were either dismissed or dropped.

{{Main|2020 United States presidential election in Minnesota}}

{{wikisource|Kistner v. Simon}}

On November 24, 2020, a petition was filed in the Minnesota Supreme Court by 25 candidates from numerous races within Minnesota as well as a handful of voters against Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon and the state's canvassing board. The suit alleged various election problems and sought a temporary restraining order delaying certification of election results, which had already been certified the previous day.{{cite web |agency=Associated Press |title=State board certifies Joe Biden as winner in Minnesota |date=November 24, 2020 |url=https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/11/24/minnesota-state-board-meets-to-certify-election-results |publisher=WMPR |access-date=November 25, 2020 |archive-date=November 25, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201125174928/https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/11/24/minnesota-state-board-meets-to-certify-election-results |url-status=live }}

On December 4, 2020, the Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed all 3 claims filed by the petitioners, and thereby ordered that the whole petitioned filed on November 24, 2020, be dismissed.{{cite web |url=https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2020/docs/20201204_CourtOrderDismissingPetition.pdf |title=Tyler Kistner, et al. vs. Steve Simon, et al. |publisher=Minnesota Supreme Court |date=December 4, 2020 |access-date=December 5, 2020 |archive-date=December 22, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201222013440/https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2020/docs/20201204_CourtOrderDismissingPetition.pdf |url-status=live }}

The court's decision to dismiss was based partly on the grounds that petitioners should have filed suit earlier. "Given the undisputed public record regarding the suspension of the witness requirement for absentee and mail ballots, petitioners had a duty to act well before November 3, 2020," the ruling states. It goes on to say that "asserting these claims 2 months after voting started, 3 weeks after voting ended, and less than 24 hours before the State Canvassing Board met to certify the election results is unreasonable."{{Cite news|last=Desmond|first=Declan|title=MN Supreme Court dismisses attempt to block election certification|url=https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/mn-supreme-court-dismisses-attempt-to-block-election-certification|date=December 4, 2020|access-date=December 5, 2020|website=Bring Me The News|language=en|archive-date=December 22, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201222013444/https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/mn-supreme-court-dismisses-attempt-to-block-election-certification|url-status=live}}

{{Main|Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election from Nevada}}

Seven lawsuits were filed in Nevada after November 3, 2020. All of these were either dismissed or dropped.

{{Main|2020 United States presidential election in New Mexico}}

On December 14, 2020, the same day that New Mexico electors cast their electoral college votes, the Trump campaign filed a lawsuit in federal court against New Mexico Secretary of State, Maggie Toulouse Oliver, the electors of New Mexico and the State Canvassing Board. The lawsuit concerns the use of drop boxes in the 2020 elections. The federal lawsuit claims that New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver violated the state election code by permitting voters to deposit completed absentee ballots in drop boxes at voting locations rather than handing them to the location's presiding judge in person. The complaint asks the court to order a delay in certifying New Mexico's electoral vote, which had already occurred, and mandate a statewide canvass of New Mexico's absentee ballots, including investigations into every voting location where a drop box was implemented.{{Cite web|last=D'Ammassa|first=Algernon|title=Trump campaign files lawsuit over New Mexico election, objecting to ballot drop boxes|url=https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/news/politics/2020/12/14/trump-campaign-lawsuit-new-mexico-absentee-ballot-drop-boxes/6546219002/ |date=December 14, 2020 |access-date=December 15, 2020|website=Las Cruces Sun-News|language=en-US|archive-date=December 22, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201222013509/https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/news/politics/2020/12/14/trump-campaign-lawsuit-new-mexico-absentee-ballot-drop-boxes/6546219002/|url-status=live}}{{Cite web|title=Trump campaign New Mexico lawsuit (1:20-cv-01289) |url=https://www.scribd.com/document/488137175/Trump-campaign-New-Mexico-lawsuit |date=December 14, 2020 |access-date=December 15, 2020|via=Scribd|language=en|archive-date=December 22, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201222013509/https://www.scribd.com/document/488137175/Trump-campaign-New-Mexico-lawsuit|url-status=live}}

On January 11, 2021, five days after Congress certified the results for Joe Biden, the campaign dropped the lawsuit.{{Cite web|url=https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/news/2021/01/11/donald-trump-election-results-new-mexico-lawsuit-dropped/6632453002/ |title=President Donald Trump's campaign drops New Mexico election lawsuit |newspaper=Las Cruces Sun-News |date=January 11, 2021 |access-date=August 6, 2021 |first=Algernon |last=D'Ammassa }} Trump attorney Mark Caruso cited "events that have transpired since the inception of this lawsuit" in a three-page motion as the reason for dropping the lawsuit. Although, the motion still allows for revisiting these concerns in the future.{{Cite web|url=https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-state-elections-lawsuits-general-elections-66d53e1e68b331c8b0bd86887dfc252b |access-date=August 6, 2021 |title=Trump asks to drop voting allegations in New Mexico, for now|date=January 12, 2021|website=AP News}}

{{Main|Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election from Pennsylvania}}

Several lawsuits were filed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Four had still been pending in federal jurisdiction at the United States Supreme Court. Of these, two lawsuits were filed after Election Day, and the other two were filed before the election. 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.{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/22/us/politics/supreme-court-pennsylvania-ballots.html |access-date=August 6, 2021 |title=Supreme Court Won't Hear Pennsylvania Election Case on Mailed Ballots|newspaper=The New York Times|date=February 22, 2021|last1=Liptak|first1=Adam}} 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.{{Cite web|url=https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/19/politics/supreme-court-tosses-gop-2020-election-challenge/index.html |first1=Ariane |last1=de Vogue |first2=Rachel |last2=Janfaza |work=CNN |date=April 19, 2021 |access-date=August 6, 2021 |title=Supreme Court tosses out another Republican 2020 election challenge}}

In August 2024, a judge ruled that Washington County, Pennsylvania, violated state law by failing to notify voters when their mail-in ballots were rejected during the April primary election. The ruling ordered the county to notify voters of future rejections and allow provisional voting.{{Cite web |title=Washington County broke law by refusing to tell voters if it rejected their ballot, judge says |url=https://www.post-gazette.com/news/election-2024/2024/08/26/washington-county-refused-to-tell-voters-mail-in-ballots-rejected/stories/202408260098 |access-date=2024-08-26 |website=Pittsburgh Post-Gazette |language=en}}

Asked a federal court to overturn the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision allowing the receipt of ballots after Election Day. Dismissed by the Pennsylvania district court, appealed to 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals; dismissed, and appealed to the Supreme Court where it was dismissed without comment on February 22, 2021.

Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar et al. is a lawsuit filed in the United States Supreme Court on December{{nbsp}}20, 2020.{{Cite web |url=https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/trump-appeals-pa-supreme-court-2020-election-decisions-20201220.html |date=December 20, 2020 |first=Jonathan |last=Lai |title=Trump campaign brings new U.S. Supreme Court challenge over Pennsylvania's 2020 election |work=The Philadelphia Inquirer |access-date=December 20, 2020 |archive-date=December 20, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201220194533/https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/trump-appeals-pa-supreme-court-2020-election-decisions-20201220.html |url-status=live }} The suit asks the Court to evaluate the constitutionality of three Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions: In re November 3, 2020, Gen. Election, In re Canvassing Observation, and In re Canvass of Absentee & Mail-In Ballots of November 3, 2020, Gen. Election. The Trump campaign also submitted a request to expedite proceedings,{{Cite web|date=December 20, 2020|title=Trump v. Boockvar, Initial Motion|url=https://cdn.donaldjtrump.com/public-files/press_assets/trump-v-boockvar-motion.pdf|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201230062933/https://cdn.donaldjtrump.com/public-files/press_assets/trump-v-boockvar-motion.pdf |via=donaldjtrump.com |archive-date=December 30, 2020|access-date=December 20, 2020}} but the Court ignored this and instead set the deadline for reply briefs from the respondents for January{{nbsp}}22, 2021, two days after Biden's inauguration. It was dismissed without comment by the Supreme Court on February 22, 2021.{{Cite web|url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-trump-campaign-case-no-hurry|title=Supreme Court in no hurry to hear Trump campaign case, sets response deadline two days after inauguration|date=December 24, 2020|access-date=December 27, 2020|website=Fox News|last1=Olson|first1=Tyler|last2=Bream|first2=Shannon|last3=Mears|first3=Bill|archive-date=December 30, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201230063005/https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-trump-campaign-case-no-hurry|url-status=live}}

{{Main|2020 United States presidential election in Texas}}

On December 27, 2020, Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert, Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward, and other Republican party members filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Vice President Mike Pence was named as defendant of the suit. The complaint argued that certain provisions of the Electoral Count Act of 1887 are unconstitutional under the Electors Clause and the Twelfth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The lawsuit's intended outcome was for Pence to be empowered to select self-styled "alternate" slates of electors from specific swing states on January 6, 2021, such that Trump received those states' electoral votes and wins the election; the Electoral Count Act does not give the Vice President any such "sole discretionary" power over electoral votes, and none of the self-styled "alternate" slates of electors from the swing states have been certified by their respective states' legal processes.

Judge Jeremy Kernodle, U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Texas, called for Vice President Pence to issue a response to the lawsuit by December 31, 2020, at 5 p.m. and for Gohmert to issue a reply to Pence by January 1, 2021, at 9 a.m. Pence replied on December 31 that the suit should be dismissed because he is not the appropriate party to address the matter. The Justice Department also requested the suit be dismissed.{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/31/us/politics/justice-department-mike-pence-louie-gohmert.html|title=Justice Dept. Asks Judge to Toss Election Lawsuit Against Pence|first1=Maggie|last1=Haberman|first2=Katie|last2=Benner|newspaper=The New York Times|date=January 1, 2021|access-date=January 1, 2021|archive-date=January 1, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210101013747/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/31/us/politics/justice-department-mike-pence-louie-gohmert.html|url-status=live}} On January 1, 2021, Gohmert and other Republicans filed a new brief contending that Pence is the proper defendant in the case, and that the United States or House or Senate parliamentarians could be added as defendants by the congressman for clarification. Gohmert stated that he needs a ruling by January 4, 2021.{{Cite web|url=https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/31/pence-overturn-election-results-lawsuit-453207 |date=December 31, 2020 |title=Pence may choose 2020 election winner 'as he sees fit,' Gohmert says in court filing |first1=Kyle |last1=Cheney |first2=Josh |last2=Gerstein |website=Politico |access-date=January 1, 2021|archive-date=December 31, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201231234423/https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/31/pence-overturn-election-results-lawsuit-453207|url-status=live}} Nonetheless, the Justice Department supported Pence and noted that Congress, not Pence, is more suitable to be sued. In addition, congressional lawyers supported Pence's position as well.{{cite news |last=Barrett |first=Devlin |title=Gohmert court filing claims Pence is not a 'glorified envelope-opener' |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/gohmert-court-filing-claims-pence-is-not-a-glorified-envelope-opener/2021/01/01/eeb6b222-4c51-11eb-839a-cf4ba7b7c48c_story.html |date=January 1, 2021 |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=January 1, 2021 |archive-date=January 6, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210106195305/https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/gohmert-court-filing-claims-pence-is-not-a-glorified-envelope-opener/2021/01/01/eeb6b222-4c51-11eb-839a-cf4ba7b7c48c_story.html |url-status=live }}

The case was dismissed without prejudice on January 1, 2021, for lack of both standing and jurisdiction. Judge Kernodle ruled that Gohmert lacked standing due to precedent set by the Supreme Court in 1997: alleging an "institutional injury to the House of Representatives" does not grant Gohmert standing to sue "as an individual". Additionally, Kernodle ruled that the injury Gohmert was alleging "requires a series of hypothetical—but by no means certain—events" that were "far too uncertain to support standing".{{cite news |last1=Linton |first1=Caroline |title=Judge dismisses Gohmert's attempt to force Pence to decide election results |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-election-gohmert-lawsuit-dismissed-pence-appeal/ |access-date=January 3, 2021 |work=CBS News |date=January 2, 2021 |archive-date=January 3, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210103071739/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-election-gohmert-lawsuit-dismissed-pence-appeal/ |url-status=live }} As for the other plaintiffs, Kernodle ruled that they lacked standing because the injury they alleged was "not fairly traceable" to the Vice President.{{cite web |last1=Berman |first1=Dan |title=Federal judge throws out Gohmert lawsuit asking Pence to interfere in Electoral College count |url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/01/politics/gohmert-pence-electoral-college-lawsuit-thrown-out/index.html |website=CNN |access-date=January 2, 2021 |date=January 2, 2021 |archive-date=January 2, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210102022516/https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/01/politics/gohmert-pence-electoral-college-lawsuit-thrown-out/index.html |url-status=live }} Gohmert appealed the district court's ruling that day.

On January 2, a three-judge panel speedily and tersely rejected the appeal, "affirm[ing] the judgment" of the district court "essentially for the reasons stated" in Kernodle's order.{{Cite web |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-pence/u-s-appeals-court-rejects-lawmakers-bid-to-have-pence-overturn-bidens-win-idUSKBN29802P |date=January 3, 2021 |work=Reuters |title=U.S. appeals court rejects lawmaker's bid to have Pence overturn Biden's win |access-date=January 3, 2021 |archive-date=January 15, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210115180232/https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-pence/u-s-appeals-court-rejects-lawmakers-bid-to-have-pence-overturn-bidens-win-idUSKBN29802P |first=Joseph |last=Ax |url-status=live }} The unanimous ruling was made by three Republican appointees: Andy Oldham (Trump) and Patrick Higginbotham and Jerry Edwin Smith (Reagan).

Gohmert then appealed to the Supreme Court, which on January 7 also tersely rejected his petition as "denied".{{cite news |last1=Smith |first1=Stewart |title=SCOTUS rejects Gohmert's last-minute appeal |url=https://www.kltv.com/2021/01/07/scotus-rejects-gohmerts-last-minute-appeal/ |access-date=January 9, 2021 |work=KLTV |date=January 7, 2021 |archive-date=January 15, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210115180244/https://www.kltv.com/2021/01/07/scotus-rejects-gohmerts-last-minute-appeal/ |url-status=live }}

{{Main|Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election from Wisconsin}}

Several lawsuits were filed in Wisconsin after the election. A three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected Trump's appeal of a lower court's ruling in Trump v. Wisconsin Elections Commission on December 24.{{cite news |title=U.S. Appeals Court rules against Trump in suit challenging Wisconsin election |url=https://www.wbay.com/2020/12/24/us-appeals-court-rules-against-trump-in-suit-challenging-wisconsin-election/ |work=WBAY-TV |location=Green Bay, WI |date=December 24, 2020 |access-date=December 25, 2020 |archive-date=December 30, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201230063006/https://www.wbay.com/2020/12/24/us-appeals-court-rules-against-trump-in-suit-challenging-wisconsin-election/ |url-status=live }} The Court considered another case, Feehan et al. v. Wisconsin Elections Commission et al., though in December 2020 Sidney Powell filed an emergency petition with the United States Supreme Court seeking an extraordinary writ of mandamus for intervention in the case. The petition was denied without comment on March 1, 2021, ending the matter.{{Cite web|url=https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/supreme-court-rejects-sidney-powells-election-fraud-petitions-without-further-comment/ |access-date=August 6, 2021 |website=Lawandcrime.com |first=Matt |last=Naham |title=Supreme Court Rejects Sidney Powell's Election Fraud Petitions without Further Comment|date=March 1, 2021}}

On December 14, 2020, a petition was filed in the Wisconsin Supreme Court by Mark Jefferson and the Republican Party of Wisconsin seeking a declaration that (1) Dane County lacks the authority to issue an interpretation of Wisconsin's election law allowing all electors in Dane County to obtain an absentee ballot without a photo identification and (2) Governor Tony Evers' Emergency Order #12 did not authorize all Wisconsin voters to obtain an absentee ballot without a photo identification. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mark Jefferson and the Republican Party of Wisconsin, stating that the Dane County government's interpretation of Wisconsin election laws was erroneous. "A county clerk may not 'declare' that any elector is indefinitely confined due to a pandemic," the court said. The court further stated that "...the presence of a communicable disease such as COVID-19, in and of itself, does not entitle all electors in Wisconsin to obtain an absentee ballot..."{{Cite web |title=Wisconsin court says voters decide if they are confined (INFOGRAPHIC) |first=Scott |last=Bauer |agency=Associated Press |date=December 15, 2020 |access-date=December 28, 2020 |url=https://wislawjournal.com/2020/12/14/wisconsin-court-says-voters-decide-if-they-are-confined/ |archive-date=December 30, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201230063011/https://wislawjournal.com/2020/12/14/wisconsin-court-says-voters-decide-if-they-are-confined/ |url-status=live }}{{Cite web |title=Jefferson v. Dane County |work=Justia |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/2020/2020ap000557-oa.html |access-date=December 28, 2020 |archive-date=December 30, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201230063019/https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/2020/2020ap000557-oa.html |url-status=live }}{{Cite web |title=Mark Jefferson v. Dane County, Wisconsin |work=wicourts.gov |access-date=December 27, 2020 |url=https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=315283 |archive-date=December 24, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201224063602/https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=315283 |url-status=live }} This ruling had no effect on the results of either Dane County or Wisconsin.

On June 25, 2021, a New York State appellate court suspended attorney Rudy Giuliani's New York law license. A few weeks later, a Washington D.C. court suspended his Washington D.C. law license.{{Cite news|title=An Appeals Court Has Suspended Rudy Giuliani's Ability To Practice Law In D.C.|work=NPR|url=https://www.npr.org/2021/07/08/1014047881/an-appeals-court-has-suspended-rudy-giulianis-ability-to-practice-law-in-d-c |access-date=August 6, 2021 |date=July 8, 2021 |first=Jaclyn |last=Diaz }}{{Cite web|first=Katelyn |last=Polantz|title=Rudy Giuliani suspended from practicing law in Washington, DC|url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/07/politics/rudy-giuliani-suspended-law-washington/index.html |date=July 7, 2021 |access-date=July 14, 2021|website=CNN}} In July 2024, Giuliani was officially disbarred in New York State.{{Cite news|title=Rudy Giuliani disbarred over false 2020 election claims|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckkg36614rzo|date=July 2, 2024|access-date=July 3, 2024}}

On July 12, 2021, U.S. District Judge Linda Parker of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held a Zoom hearing and compelled the testimony of several lawyers that participated in post-election lawsuits, including Sidney Powell, L. Lin Wood, and others. The hearing is the first step in determining if lawyers that participated in post-election lawsuits should receive attorney misconduct sanctions or be referred to a regulatory body for disbarment proceedings, for violating the ethics of their profession.{{Cite web|date=July 12, 2021|title=A Federal Judge Holds 'Kraken' Lawyers' Feet to the Fire at Sanctions Hearing. Lin Wood Tried to Distance Himself from It All.|url=https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/a-federal-judge-holds-kraken-lawyers-feet-to-the-fire-at-sanctions-hearing-lin-wood-tried-to-distance-himself-from-it-all/ |first=Adam |last=Klasfeld |access-date=July 14, 2021|website=Law & Crime|language=en}}{{Cite web|date=July 12, 2021|title=Judge eyes sanctions on pro-Trump lawyers who claimed voter fraud|url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/judge-blasts-ex-trump-lawyer-sidney-powell-over-lawsuit-overturn-us-election-2021-07-12/ |first1=Jan |last1=Wolfe |first2=David |last2=Thomas |access-date=July 14, 2021|website=Reuters}} Judge Parker issued sanctions against the attorneys in August 2021, ordering them to pay the legal fees incurred by Michigan authorities and to take legal education classes. Parker also referred the attorneys to the states where they are licensed to practice law for possible disciplinary action. She wrote the attorneys had "scorned their oath, flouted the rules, and attempted to undermine the integrity of the judiciary along the way."{{Cite web|url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/25/politics/judge-sanctions-powell-wood-kraken-lawsuits/index.html|title=Judge sanctions pro-Trump lawyers who brought 'frivolous' election fraud lawsuits|author=Tierney Sneed|website=CNN|date=August 25, 2021 }}{{Cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-sanctions-sidney-powell-other-pro-trump-lawyers-who-claimed-voter-fraud-2021-08-25/|title='Profound abuse': Judge disciplines pro-Trump lawyers over election lawsuit|date=August 26, 2021|website=Reuters}}

On August 3, 2021, Magistrate Judge for the District of Colorado N. Reid Neureiter sanctioned two lawyers, Gary D. Fielder and Ernest John Walker, for a "frivolous" election lawsuit that was filed "in bad faith", containing "highly disputed and inflammatory" allegations that the lawyers made no efforts to verify.{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/colorado-sanctions-trump-lawsuit/2021/08/04/704dec92-f53a-11eb-a49b-d96f2dac0942_story.html |title='The stuff of which violent insurrections are made:' Federal judge punishes Colorado lawyers for 2020 election lawsuit |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=August 4, 2021 |access-date=August 6, 2021 |first=Rosalind S. |last=Helderman }}{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/lawyers-sanctioned-over-fantastical-suit-alleging-2020-us-election-was-stolen-2021-08-04/ |work=Reuters |date=August 4, 2021 |first=Jan |last=Wolfe |access-date=August 6, 2021 |title=Lawyers sanctioned over 'fantastical' suit alleging 2020 U.S. election was stolen }} In November 2021, Neureiter ordered the two attorneys to pay the groups they sued $187,000 to defray their legal costs, and to deter similar frivolous suits.{{cite news |last1=Helderman |first1=Rosalind S. |title=Judge orders two lawyers who filed suit challenging 2020 election to pay hefty fees: 'They need to take responsibility' |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/they-need-to-take-responsibility-federal-judge-orders-hefty-fees-assessed-against-two-lawyers-who-filed-suit-challenging-2020-election/2021/11/22/b7ff5392-4be7-11ec-b0b0-766bbbe79347_story.html |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=November 22, 2021}}

Attorney Sidney Powell used the phrase "release the Kraken" to describe legal efforts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. It became a catchphrase for unfounded conspiracy theory.{{Cite news|last=Alba|first=Davey|author-link=Davey Alba|date=November 17, 2020|title='Release the Kraken,' a catchphrase for unfounded conspiracy theory, trends on Twitter.|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/technology/release-the-kraken-a-catchphrase-for-unfounded-conspiracy-theory-trends-on-twitter.html|access-date=July 14, 2021|issn=0362-4331}}{{Cite news|date=November 28, 2020|title=The Kraken: What is it and why has Trump's ex-lawyer released it?|language=en-GB|work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-55090145|access-date=July 14, 2021}}

{{portal|Politics}}

• Pre-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election
• Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election
• Donald Trump's false claims of a stolen election
• Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News Network
• Trump fake electors plot

{{Reflist}}

• [https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/voting-rights-litigation-2020 Voting Rights Litigation 2020] at the Brennan Center for Justice
• [https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/ COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker] at the Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
• [https://www.scotusblog.com/election-litigation/ 2020 Election Litigation Tracker] at SCOTUSblog
• [https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/the-politicians-who-tried-to-overturn-an-election--and-the-local-news-team-that-wont-let-anyone-forget-it/2021/05/01/cc8764f6-a91e-11eb-8d25-7b30e74923ea_story.html News team decides to remind listeners of the attempted overthrow of the USA government by
  Republican elected officials on January 6, 2021] (WITF; The Washington Post; May 2, 2021).

{{Donald Trump}}

{{2020 United States presidential election}}

Category:2020 United States presidential election

Category:Controversies of the 2020 United States presidential election

Category:Donald Trump litigation

2020 United States presidential election

Category:First Trump administration controversies