Have there been any appeals filed in the Rockland County lawsuit since October 1, 2025, and what are their statuses?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
As of the available reporting, multiple lawsuits in Rockland County — most prominently the 2024 election challenge — were in active pre-appeal phases through late 2025 with discovery, compliance conferences and motions pending; explicit filings of new appeals after October 1, 2025 are not reported in the sourced material (not found in current reporting) [1] [2] [3]. Court scheduling and procedural rulings through late 2025 include a judge-ordered discovery phase and an unresolved motion-to-dismiss timeline that left the next substantive steps to the court rather than to appellate filings as of the dates in these sources [1] [2] [3].
1. What’s at stake: the high-profile Rockland election lawsuit
Plaintiffs including SMART Legislation and private individuals sued over alleged anomalies in Rockland County’s 2024 Presidential and Senate tallies and sought a full hand recount; Judge Rachel Tanguay allowed the recount branch and ordered discovery to proceed in March 2025, keeping the recount claim alive in trial-court proceedings rather than shifting matters immediately to an appellate court [3] [1].
2. Procedural posture before October 1, 2025: discovery and a motion to dismiss
Reporting through mid-to-late 2025 shows the case moved into discovery — plaintiffs served extensive document requests including voting-machine software materials — and the Rockland County Board of Elections filed a motion to dismiss; plaintiffs filed responses and the judge had a 60‑day window after the Board’s reply to rule, a timing sequence that placed resolution back in the trial court rather than on appeal as of those reports [3] [2].
3. What happened after October 1, 2025 — available sources don’t report appeals
Searched items in the provided collection do not record any appeals filed in the Rockland County election litigation after October 1, 2025. The sources instead document discovery activity, scheduled compliance conferences and the judge’s pending consideration of dismissal motions; they do not mention a notice of appeal, an appellate docket entry, or appellate briefs filed after that date [1] [2] [3]. Therefore, an affirmative claim that appeals were filed after Oct. 1, 2025 cannot be made from these sources.
4. What court activity is documented through these sources
The materials show concrete trial-court activity: discovery demands for trusted-build software and voting-machine software, a March 3, 2025 ruling preserving recount relief, and compliance hearings scheduled for September 22, 2025 — all signs the case remained in trial-court posture while both sides pursued evidence and procedural motions [3] [1] [4].
5. Competing views in the record: statistical anomalies vs. demographic explanations
Plaintiffs cite statistical deviations that they say require a hand recount; outside analysts and academics — cited in the coverage — argue demographic “bloc voting” can explain the discrepancies, with at least one MIT expert and other analysts finding no evidence of manipulation and calling the phenomenon explicable without alleging machine or counting error [2] [5] [6]. Media outlets like Snopes and Votebeat emphasize the limits of the complaint as proof of fraud while noting the court’s role in testing those claims in discovery [7] [5] [8].
6. Why an appeal may not have been filed yet — strategic and procedural reasons
The record shows the judge retained and managed key remedies — ordering discovery and keeping the recount claim alive — so immediate appeals would have been premature or procedurally limited; the Board’s motion to dismiss and the judge’s forthcoming decisions were the natural next steps before either side was likely to take an interlocutory or final appeal [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not discuss any strategic decisions to appeal or any notices of appeal filed after Oct. 1, 2025 (not found in current reporting).
7. Limits of the sources and next steps for confirmation
These sources cover trial-court filings, press statements and scheduled hearings through late 2025 but do not include an appellate docket search or clerk filings after Oct. 1, 2025. To confirm whether any appeals were filed after that date, one must inspect the New York appellate dockets or PACER/official court records for notices of appeal and appellate briefs; those records are not included in these sources (not found in current reporting).
8. Bottom line for readers
Based on the documents and reporting provided, there is no reported appellate filing in the Rockland County election litigation after Oct. 1, 2025; the case as reported remained in trial-court posture with discovery and motion practice ongoing [1] [2] [3]. Competing interpretations persist in the public record: plaintiffs press for a hand recount and release of machine materials, while experts and some journalists say demographic patterns plausibly explain the anomalies — a dispute the trial process, per the record, is still resolving [3] [2] [5].