What did state and federal courts rule about challenges to the 2020 election results?

1. High courts mostly said "no" — the Supreme Court declined or rejected challenges

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant relief that would have changed certified results in multiple states won by Joe Biden and explicitly did not vote to overturn the 2020 outcome; instead the court declined to hear or dismissed major challenges originating from Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin ^{[4] [5]}. The Court also acted during the pre‑election period to limit lower‑court changes to state election rules — for example staying district-court orders that extended absentee deadlines — underscoring reluctance to rewrite state election rules close to voting ^{[6] [7]}.

2. Federal appeals and district courts dismissed many claims for lack of evidence

Federal judges and appeals courts repeatedly found that plaintiffs — including the Trump campaign and allied litigants — supplied speculation, hearsay or insufficient proof to back allegations of widespread fraud, leading to dismissal of over 50 suits in state and federal courts ^[1]. Reuters and other trackers documented numerous rulings where courts reviewed evidence and declined to upend certified results because the factual and legal bases were weak or absent ^[1].

3. State supreme courts rejected targeted efforts to invalidate ballots or procedures

State high courts addressed discrete claims about procedures and ballot categories and, in several instances, ruled against efforts to throw out ballots en masse. For example, the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected an attempt to invalidate more than 220,000 votes from Dane and Milwaukee Counties, finding one category meritless and barring other claims under laches ^[2]. State courts generally resolved technical claims but did not declare the election unlawful ^{[8] [2]}.

4. Procedural doctrines — like laches and separation of powers — played a major role

Courts often relied on procedural rules rather than reach deep merits. Doctrines such as laches (untimely challenge) prevented late attacks on rules or practices that existed before the election — a rationale the Wisconsin court used, and one highlighted in analyses of state litigation ^{[2] [3]}. The Supreme Court and other federal courts also emphasized that federal courts should be cautious about changing state election rules close to voting or supplanting state legislatures and courts ^{[6] [7]}.

5. Some rulings found narrow problems but did not invalidate outcomes

Post‑election litigation and later state court decisions did find isolated constitutional or statutory defects in certain practices — for example, later rulings limited the use or placement of ballot drop boxes in some states — but these decisions did not equate to courts declaring the 2020 presidential election “illegal” or overturning certified results ^[8]. Fact‑check reporting emphasized that while some procedures were later found problematic, those findings did not change the overall outcome ^[8].

6. Scholarly and watchdog reviews: a consensus that most challenges failed

Analyses by legal scholars and watchdog organizations concluded that judges across the system, including Trump appointees, generally applied existing law and dismissed many claims; an empirical review found a minority of judicial votes favored the plaintiffs and characterized the campaign’s “judicial campaign” as largely unsuccessful ^[9]. Campaign legal trackers catalogued case outcomes showing dismissals, procedural rulings and a small number of adverse findings on narrow points — but not wholesale reversal of results ^{[10] [9]}.

7. What the coverage does not say (limitations and unanswered items)

Available sources document how courts decided the major suits and the common legal rationales (lack of evidence, laches, separation‑of‑powers), but they do not provide a single exhaustive list in these excerpts of every case outcome or every procedural nuance; for a complete case‑by‑case accounting, court dockets and detailed trackers such as Campaign Legal Center or SCOTUSblog should be consulted ^{[10] [11]}. Sources provided do not mention any instance where the Supreme Court voted to overturn certified 2020 results ^[5].

Summary takeaway: Judges at all levels considered many challenges, often on narrow legal grounds, and the prevailing result in state and federal courts — including the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant relief in key matters — left certified results intact ^{[1] [4] [2]}.