The Supreme Court rejected former President Donald Trump’s last remaining challenge from the 2020 presidential election on Monday, denying his request for them to hear his case against the Wisconsin Election Commission.
Trump claimed that Wisconsin election officials violated state law by using what their lawyers called “illegal and unauthorized voting boxes” and by allowing election officials to correct election witnesses’ certificates. Although the election is over and President Biden is already in office, Trump continued to litigate the case, filing a petition in February arguing that the case was necessary to prevent similar situations in the future.
THE SUPREME COURT LISTENS TO VOTING RIGHTS IN ARIZONA AS LEFT COMPARES JUSTICS WITH SEGREGATIONISTS
“The narrow window in which legal disputes can be resolved after a presidential election weighs heavily in favor of applying the ‘repeatable’ doctrine to resolve recurring issues,” Trump said on February 9. “Otherwise, non-legislative state actors can be encouraged in future presidential elections to make even more last-minute changes to state electoral laws contrary to the Electoral Clause than occurred in this year’s election.”
The Supreme Court finally disagreed with that position, denying Trump’s request to hear the case. The court order came weeks after denying several other electoral challenges, including a challenge to a Pennsylvania state court decision that extended the deadline for accepting missing ballots.
This was not the only electoral challenge that the court rejected on Monday. The Supreme Court also denied a request for an injunction from attorney L. Lin Wood, who sued Georgia officials, including Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. Wood claimed that state officials wrongly changed the rules and treated absentee voters differently than personal voters.
THE SUPREME COURT WILL NOT INTERRUPT TRUMP TAX RECORDS
Wood had sought an order to block a first instance court’s ruling against him and to preserve electoral data. He also wanted an order preventing the second round of Georgia’s Senate election, which has already taken place. With the Supreme Court denying his request, the 11th Circuit of Appeals ruling that said Wood had no legitimacy to move the case remains in effect.
Also on Monday, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in a religious freedom case in which students Chike Uzuegbunam and Joseph Bradford sued Georgia Gwinnett College over policies that allowed the school to restrict its ability to verbally express its religious views in areas of freedom of expression designated if other students complained. The school ended up changing its policy, making the question debatable, but the students wanted to keep the case alive in order to collect nominal damages.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPLICATION
In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that even the nominal damages were sufficient to keep a case alive, even if the issue involved was debatable.
“[I]f in the course of litigation a court finds that it can no longer provide the plaintiff with any effective relief, the case is generally debatable, “Judge Clarence Thomas wrote in the court’s opinion.” This case questions whether a nominal damage concession alone can repair a past injury. We believe it can. “
Court President John Roberts was the only dissident, arguing that the case should have been closed because the court could not grant “effective guardianship”, since the rules in question no longer exist, the plaintiffs are no longer students at school, and they didn’t claim any real damages.