What were the major court cases filed after the 2020 election and why were they dismissed?
Executive summary
The post‑2020 legal onslaught consisted of more than 60 challenges in federal and state courts aimed at decertifying results in battleground states and depriving state electors of Joe Biden’s victory; nearly all were dismissed for a mix of standing and procedural defects, insufficient evidence, and timing or jurisdictional bars, with only isolated limited rulings for preservation of materials [1] [2] [3]. Major, high‑profile cases—Texas v. Pennsylvania at the U.S. Supreme Court, state challenges in Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and a constitutional attack seeking to expand the Vice President’s role (Gohmert et al. v. Pence)—were rejected for lack of standing, failure to state viable legal claims, or because plaintiffs could not substantiate assertions of widespread fraud [4] [5] [6] [3].
1. Texas v. Pennsylvania — “the big one” that never got a hearing
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asked the Supreme Court to throw out the certified results of four states and award their 62 electoral votes to Trump; the Court declined to hear the case, a decision critics described as denying an unprecedented demand to invalidate other states’ election administration, with courts and legal scholars pointing to lack of standing and reliance on complaints already rejected elsewhere [4] [7]. Seventeen Republican attorneys general filed briefs supporting Paxton, and 126 House Republicans signed on, but the Court’s refusal—grounded in justiciability principles and the extraordinary remedy sought—illustrated the institutional reluctance to upend state certification without concrete legal grounds [4].
2. State‑level campaign suits — lost on evidence, procedure, or timeliness
The Trump campaign and allied litigants filed suits in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and elsewhere; most were dismissed because plaintiffs failed to provide admissible evidence of fraud or errors that could change the outcome, or because the claims were untimely or procedurally defective [3] [8] [9]. Courts in Arizona and Nevada found duplication audits and recount evidence showed accuracy and human error rather than systemic fraud [3], while Michigan courts deemed presented evidence unreliable and refused to halt certification [9]. Judges repeatedly applied pleading standards and evidentiary rules, concluding that extraordinary relief cannot rest on speculative assertions or post‑hoc grievances about long‑standing election practices [2] [6].
3. Trump v. Kemp and other Georgia efforts — decertification denied
A late federal filing, Trump v. Kemp, sought to decertify Georgia’s results and have the legislature appoint electors; the district court dismissed the suit and appeals courts affirmed, finding the filings lacked a valid complaint in some instances, relied on speculative inferences, and did not show legal entitlement to the relief sought—decertification of a statewide popular vote [5] [8]. The procedural scramble—some filings arriving minutes before certification deadlines—meant courts also confronted laches and the impracticality of a remedy that would disenfranchise millions without overwhelming proof [5].
4. Gohmert et al. v. Pence — constitutional theory rejected for standing
A suit by Rep. Louie Gohmert and alternate electors challenged the Electoral Count Act and asked a court to empower Vice President Pence to reject certified electoral votes; the Eastern District of Texas dismissed the suit for lack of Article III standing because the alleged injury depended on a chain of hypothetical events, and appellate review and Supreme Court consideration did not revive it [7] [6]. Courts characterized the claim as an extraordinary attempt to convert political questions and disputed statutory interpretation into judicially cognizable injuries without concrete, justiciable harm [6].
5. Why courts mostly closed the door — standing, evidence, timing, and jurisdiction
Across the litigation landscape judges—Democratic and Republican appointees alike—reached similar conclusions: plaintiffs lacked standing or failed to meet pleading and proof thresholds; assertions of machine manipulation, mass illegal voting, or improper ballot handling were repeatedly found unsupported by admissible evidence; in many cases the suits were untimely or sought remedies courts lack authority to grant, such as substituting state legislatures’ certified results [2] [3] [10]. Academic and legal reviews summarized the results as a near‑total failure of the judicial campaign to alter the outcome: dozens of dismissed cases, a handful of narrow procedural wins, and a consistent judicial emphasis on rule‑bound adjudication over political remedies [1] [2].