Which specific 2020 post‑election lawsuits were dismissed for lack of standing or timeliness, and what were the courts’ reasoned opinions?

1. High‑profile federal dismissal: Texas v. Pennsylvania — standing at the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in an unsigned order, denied Texas’ motion to file a bill of complaint challenging Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, explicitly ruling that Texas lacked Article III standing because it had not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in how other states conduct elections, and dismissing related motions as moot ^{[1] [5]}.

2. Individual and congressional plaintiffs: speculative injuries and “too hypothetical” claims

Federal judges rejected suits brought by individual members of Congress or private plaintiffs for lack of standing where asserted injuries depended on a chain of speculative events; for example, the district court (and later the Fifth Circuit) found the alleged “institutional injury” to the House or harms tied to the vice president were too hypothetical or not fairly traceable to defendants and therefore insufficient to establish Article III standing ^{[2] [3]}.

3. Campaign and party suits: standing and jurisdiction in key battleground cases

Several Trump‑campaign and allied suits were dismissed because courts found no concrete injury and therefore lacked jurisdiction: the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar for lack of standing while nevertheless addressing merits and rejecting the Equal Protection theory; the Third Circuit and district judges repeatedly applied Bognet‑related standing precedent against campaign claims that failed to allege an “injury in fact” ^{[4] [6]}.

4. Timeliness and laches: state courts invoking delay doctrines

Where plaintiffs waited to litigate or sought extraordinary last‑minute remedies, courts sometimes invoked timeliness doctrines: the Wisconsin Supreme Court dismissed three claims under laches, holding certain challenges were filed too late to justify the extraordinary relief sought, and other federal judges denied emergency relief because plaintiffs sought to resurrect or change long‑used procedures on the eve of certification ^{[4] [3]}.

5. Evidence, merits and mixed procedural outcomes — dismissal beyond standing/timeliness

Beyond standing and timeliness, several courts—after hearings or review—dismissed cases for lack of credible evidence; district courts in Nevada and others found that plaintiffs failed to provide reliable, verifiable proof of fraud and therefore failed to state a claim, while a number of suits were dismissed after full consideration on the merits or voluntarily withdrawn ^{[7] [8] [3]}.

6. What the written opinions say about judicial reasoning and patterns

Across opinions judges emphasized limited federal jurisdiction, the need for a concrete and particularized injury, the requirement that alleged injury be traceable to defendants, and the unavailability of extraordinary remedies where plaintiffs belatedly sought to alter settled procedures; several opinions explicitly criticized speculative chains of events or “mythical time machines,” and some courts warned about potential sanctions for counsel advancing unsupported claims ^{[6] [3] [2]}.

7. Big picture, numbers, and reporting caveats

Reporting and trackers note that dozens of suits were dismissed or withdrawn—many on standing/timeliness grounds and many after judges examined the evidence—while some widely publicized filings were disposed of without reaching merits; comprehensive counts vary across sources, and the available reporting documents both procedural dismissals (standing, laches) and substantive rejections for lack of proof ^{[9] [10] [7]}.