By Maryclaire Dale

President Donald Trump’s legal team suffered yet another defeat in court Friday as a federal appeals court in Philadelphia roundly rejected the campaign's latest effort to challenge the state’s election results.

Trump’s lawyers vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court despite the judges' assessment that the “campaign’s claims have no merit.”

“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” 3rd Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote for the three-judge panel.

The case had been argued last week in a lower court by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who insisted during five hours of oral arguments that the 2020 presidential election had been marred by widespread fraud in Pennsylvania. However, Giuliani failed to offer any tangible proof of that in court.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann had said the campaign's error-filled complaint, “like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together” and denied Giuliani the right to amend it for a second time.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals called that decision justified. The three judges on the panel were all appointed by Republican presidents. including Bibas, a former University of Pennsylvania law professor appointed by Trump. Trump’s sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, sat on the court for 20 years, retiring in 2019.

“Voters, not lawyers, choose the president. Ballots, not briefs, decide elections,” Bibas said in the opinion, which also denied the campaign's request to stop the state from certifying its results, a demand he called “breathtaking.”

In fact, Pennsylvania officials had certified their vote count Monday for President-elect Joe Biden, who defeated Trump by more than 80,000 votes in the state. Nationally, Biden and running mate Kamala Harris garnered nearly 80 million votes, a record in U.S. presidential elections.

Trump has said he hopes the Supreme Court will intervene in the race as it did in 2000 when its decision to stop the recount in Florida gave the election to Republican George W. Bush. On Nov. 5, as the vote count continued, Trump posted a tweet saying the “U.S. Supreme Court should decide!”

Ever since, Trump and his surrogates have attacked the election as flawed and filed a flurry of lawsuits to try to block the results in six battleground states. But they’ve found little sympathy from judges, nearly all of whom dismissed their complaints about the security of mail-in ballots, which millions of people used to vote from home during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trump perhaps hopes a Supreme Court he helped steer toward a conservative 6-3 majority would be more open to his pleas, especially since the high court upheld Pennsylvania’s decision to accept mail-in ballots through Nov. 6 by only a 4-4 vote last month. Since then, Trump nominee Amy Coney Barrett has joined the court.

“The activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania continues to cover up the allegations of massive fraud,” Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis tweeted after Friday's ruling. “On to SCOTUS!”

In the case before Brann, the Trump campaign asked to disenfranchise the state’s 6.8 million voters, or at least the 700,000 who voted by mail in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and other Democratic-leaning areas.

“One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption,” Brann wrote in his scathing ruling on Nov. 21. “That has not happened.”

A separate Republican challenge that reached the Pennsylvania Supreme Court this week seeks to stop the state from further certifying any races on the ballot. Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration is fighting that effort, saying it would prevent the state’s legislature and congressional delegation from being seated in the coming weeks.

On Thursday, Trump said the Nov. 3 election was still far from over. Yet he offered the clearest signal to date that he would leave the White House peaceably on Jan. 20 if the Electoral College formalizes Biden’s win.

“Certainly I will. But you know that,” Trump said at the White House, taking questions from reporters for the first time since Election Day.

On Friday, however, he continued to baselessly attack Detroit, Atlanta and other Democratic cities with large Black populations as the source of “massive voter fraud.” And he claimed, without evidence, that a Pennsylvania poll watcher had uncovered computer memory drives that “gave Biden 50,000 votes” apiece.

All 50 states must certify their results before the Electoral College meets on Dec. 14, and any challenge to the results must be resolved by Dec. 8. Biden won both the Electoral College and popular vote by wide margins.

Updated on November 27, 2020, at 2:41 p.m. ET with the latest information.

Share:
More In Politics
Biden's Approval Among Young Voters Dips
Just 27% of voters aged 18-29 approve of the job Biden is doing as president, according to a survey from The Economist and YouGov late last year. Santiago Mayer, executive director of Voters of Tomorrow, joins Cheddar Politics to discuss why President Biden is losing support among young voters.
One Year Into Donald Trump's Social Media Exile
Jesse Lehrich, co-founder of Accountable Tech, joins Cheddar News to discuss it being one year since Trump was exiled from social media and the former President's new platform 'Truth Social.'
Voting Rights Groups Push For Action Over Words
Cliff Albright, co-founder of the group Black Voters Matter, joins Cheddar Politics to discuss why he boycotted President Biden's voting rights speech this week, and the push from Senate Democrats to debate and vote on the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
Competing Bills From Both Sides of the Aisle Look to Limit Lawmaker Stock Trading
Senator Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) has teamed up with fellow Democratic senator and former astronaut Mark Kelly to introduce the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act, a bill to essentially end stock trading by sitting lawmakers. From the other side of the aisle, Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced his own legislation to enact something similar. The dueling bills come at a time when it's popular to constrain members of Congress from owning and trading stocks. Karl Evers-Hillstrom, a business and lobbying reporter at The Hill, spoke to Cheddar about the significance of the bills, and what they could mean for lawmakers, their families, and staffers moving forward.
Second U.S. Starbucks Store Votes to Unionize
A second Starbucks location in the U.S. has officially voted to unionize. On Monday, the National Labor Relations Board announced workers at the Starbucks store located in the Buffalo, NY suburb of Cheektowaga voted 15-9 in favor of being represented by Workers United, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union. The New York Times reports votes were tallied in December but remained inconclusive as the union challenged the ballots of several employees it said did not work at the store. A Starbucks spokesperson has said that it may appeal the labor board's decision, which comes as several other Starbucks stores across the country are also pushing to form a union. Danka Dragic, shift supervisor for the second Starbucks store in the country to unionize, joined Cheddar News' Closing Bell to discuss.
Rep. Tom Emmer Proposes Bill To Prevent Federal Reserve Control of U.S. Digital Currency
Earlier today, Minnesota Republican Representative, Tom Emmer, introduced a bill that would prevent the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency directly to American consumers. According to the Congressman from Minnesota, requiring Americans to open a fed account to access a digital currency, would "put the Fed on insidious path akin to China's digital authoritarianism." Rep. Tom Emmer joined Cheddar's None of The Above to discuss more.
16 Elite Universities Sued Over Collusion To Limit Financial Aid
Sixteen of the country's most prestigious universities have been hit with a lawsuit claiming those schools illegally conspired to eliminate competitive financial aid offers for students. Just some of the schools mentioned include Yale, Brown, Columbia, UPenn, and Cornell. Author of "Who Gets In and Why" and Professor of practice at Arizona State University, Jeff Selingo, joined Cheddar to discuss more.
Load More