It wasn’t an earth-shattering Monday morning when it came to Supreme Court orders, but court watchers may have noticed that the justices, without comment or explanation, jettisoned more lingering 2020 election challenges. It happened one week after SCOTUS cleared out several similar cases and the morning after Donald Trump repeated the “stolen” election lie to his loyal followers at CPAC.
The Supreme Court rejected two mandamus petitions that Sidney Powell and other “Kraken”-aligned lawyers filed in late December. Those cases were stylized as In re Tyler Bowyer, et al. and In Re William Feehan. The cases took issue with the election results in Arizona and Wisconsin, where Trump lost to Joe Biden.
“The petitions for writs of mandamus are denied,” the court said Monday. That’s it, that’s the order.
The matter-of-factness and brevity stands in stark contrast to the urgency and “public importance” that the lawyers communicated in the since-dismissed petitions.
“A submission directly to this Court seeking an extraordinary writ of mandamus is unusual, but it has its foundation. While such relief is rare, this Court will grant it ‘where a question of public importance is involved, or where the question is of such a nature that it is peculiarly appropriate that such action by this Court should be taken,'” each of the mandamus petitions said.
Each of the petitions also presented four questions for the court to answer:
A. Whether presidential electors have standing to challenge the outcome of a presidential election for fraud and illegality that cause the defeat of their candidate?B. Whether federal courts have and should exercise jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 over claims by presidential electors that the presidential election was stolen from them by fraud and illegality under color law in violation of their constitutional rights under the Elections and Electors, Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution?C. Whether a claim by presidential electors to de-certify the results of a presidential election and enjoin voting in the electoral college by the rival slate of electors is barred by laches when it is brought within the state law statute of limitations for post-certification election contests, and before the post recount re- certification?D. Whether the remedial powers of a federal court under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 include invalidation of an unconstitutionally conducted election, and an injunction against presidential electors appointed in such an election from voting in the electoral college?
None of those questions were answered and the Supreme Court did not take up any of its time explaining why it did not do so.
Last week, an independent forensic audit in Maricopa County, Arizona found “no evidence of vote switching” by Dominion Voting Systems’ machines.
[Image via MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images]