What were the latest court rulings in the Rockland County NY lawsuit as of October 1, 2025?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
As of Oct. 1, 2025, the Rockland County lawsuit challenging parts of the 2024 Presidential and U.S. Senate tallies had survived early dismissal and entered discovery, with Judge Rachel Tanguay having left a recount claim on the table in an initial March 3, 2025 ruling and ordered discovery to proceed; a Sept. 22, 2025 hearing was publicly scheduled in some reporting while plaintiffs continued to press for a full hand recount and broad machine- and software-related discovery [1] [2] [3]. Independent reporting and election-law commentators have repeatedly said experts see no obvious reason to overturn certified results, even as the case has helped amplify skepticism among some voters [4] [5].
1. What the court actually did: discovery allowed, recount claim preserved
In open court earlier in 2025, Justice Rachel Tanguay ruled that discovery should proceed and explicitly left the branch of the plaintiffs’ petition that seeks a hand recount of Presidential and Senate ballots in Rockland County “on the table,” meaning the petition survived early dismissal and moved into evidence-gathering rather than being thrown out at threshold [1] [3]. Multiple outlets cite the March 3, 2025 ruling as the pivot point that advanced the case into the discovery phase [1] [6].
2. What plaintiffs are asking for in discovery — broad voting-machine and network questions
Plaintiffs represented by SMART Legislation have sought a wide range of documents and answers: the trusted-build software and current software on Rockland’s ES&S voting machines, details about software updates, and whether modems, Wi‑Fi, cellular connections, Starlink Direct-to-Cell, or a program called BallotProof were used on county systems. Those requests underlie the plaintiffs’ theory that machine/software issues could explain alleged anomalies and motivate a hand recount [3] [7] [1].
3. The next hearing dates reported and procedural posture as of late 2025
Some reporting indicated a court date of Sept. 22, 2025 for further proceedings; Snopes noted that scheduling and that plaintiffs were pressing for a public hand count to “put any questions to rest,” while Rockland officials told reporters they had “full faith” in the Board of Elections and were seeking dismissal and a stay of discovery in filings [2] [7]. Available sources do not mention any final dispositive order overruling the March 3 ruling as of Oct. 1, 2025.
4. What the complaint claims — statistical anomalies and “drop-off” differences
The complaint cites statistical anomalies, notably an alleged more-than-30% “drop-off” between votes for the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates in Rockland and examples where ballots showed votes for Democratic Senate candidates but not the Democratic presidential candidate in the same contests. Plaintiffs argue those patterns warrant a hand count [8] [1].
5. Counterpoints from experts and local officials — skepticism of overturning results
Election experts quoted in reporting have said there is no clear basis to question Rockland’s certified results and that demographic voting patterns can explain many of the cited anomalies; Votebeat and election-law commentary describe how the case has nonetheless amplified mistrust despite those expert views [4] [5]. The county’s attorney has told reporters the claims “have no merit” and that petitioners do not qualify for a recount as a matter of law; Rockland also moved to dismiss and sought a stay of discovery [7].
6. What a recount could — and could not — accomplish
Local reporting and legal summaries emphasize limits: even if a court ordered and completed a hand recount in Rockland County, it would not change the nationwide certification of the 2024 Presidential election and would affect only Rockland County’s tallies; coverage frames the litigation as legally significant for local election oversight but unlikely to alter broader outcomes [9] [2].
7. How the case is being covered and the political effect
Reporting shows the suit has been amplified across media and political lines; Votebeat traces how the case has fanned election skepticism on the left despite a lack of expert consensus that the results were flawed, and election-law blogs have critiqued the statistical arguments raised by plaintiffs [4] [5].
Limitations and next steps: reporting available in the provided sources documents the March 3, 2025 ruling to proceed to discovery and notes scheduled hearings and document requests through summer 2025, but does not include any final judgment or dispositive ruling issued on or before Oct. 1, 2025; available sources do not mention a final court order resolving the recount request as of that date [1] [2]. For a definitive docket update, court records or filings at the Rockland County Supreme Court clerk’s office or New York State court online calendars should be checked [10] [11].