So, quick rundown of the latest #Squidigation decision: It'…

First: 11th Amendment Immunity. Basically, states (and their officials) have sovereign immunity; you can't sue them in Federal Court except to the extent that they agree to be sued there. Quick thumbnail of the doctrine here

There are only 3 exceptions to this: 1) Congress says "you can sue your state for this"; 2) the state agrees to be sued; 3) Younger, a case that said "you can sue your state if you are just seeking an order saying 'stop violating my rights'"

In other words, if the state passes a law that says "no talking politics in public" you can sue for an order saying "that's unconstitutional and can't be enforced" but not for damages from having your 1A rights violated in the past

I'm sure you can see where this is going: Exceptions 1 and 2 don't apply; Congress didn't say "no sovereign immunity" when it passed 42 USC 1983 (the civil rights statute the plaintiffs sued under) and Michigan hasn't waived it. That leave Younger as the only remaining option

Shit, not Younger. Ex parte Young. (Younger is a different issue). Apologies

Anyway, Young doesn't apply, for two reasons: 1) it NEVER applies to state law claims (so the Plaintiffs' claims that Michigan violated its own election code are barred); 2) The Plaintiffs are asking for backwards looking relief ("decertify, etc") not an injunction against future

violations of their rights. So that exception isn't available, either.

Bottom line: The Plaintiffs have no ability to sue any of these defendants at all, so they lose.

Next, Judge Parker moves on to mootness: Even if they *could* sue these defendants, the court couldn't give the plaintiffs any relief, so the case is moot

Here's what the Plaintiffs asked for

The problem with all that? Before they bothered to sue, the results had already been certified, the certification passed to the Archivists, and the time set in Michigan law for requesting special elections (based on voting machine errors) or recounts had expired

For all of you nervous folks out there - and I know there are a lot of you - pay special attention to the footnote: There is no longer any legal avenue left for challenging Michigan's election results.

It's over.

The opinion then runs through why all of this means the case is moot; not gonna take you paragraph by paragraph but it quotes both the 11th Circuit's decision in Wood ("we cannot turn back the clock and create a world in which the 2020 election results are not certified") and

Wecht's concurrence in the PA Supreme Court case: "What are you idiots smoking, there's no legal mechanism for ignoring the vote, morons"

(I paraphrase)

So, our intrepid band of adventurers sued people who cannot be sued for relief that can't be granted. (Exactly the same as if they had sued Daenerys Targaryen and asked the Court for an order directing that they be awarded a dragon egg). But even if the court could ignore that...

They managed to file their lawsuits too late

By now, you're all familiar with the concept of laches, right? That if you sit on your hands and let the "bad thing" play out, when you could have stopped it earlier, and the delay harms people, the Court's not going to pay attention when you suddenly wake up and say "stop em!"

And oh boy did they ever file them late. Every aspect of their claim was late, especially its core; if you are going to sue about alleged software problems you claim have been discussed for a decade, do it *before* the fucking election

And, of COURSE the delay harmed the voters and defendants; we've now had an election and blown by Michigan's statutory deadlines for election challenges. Done.

But the Court isn't done yet. Even if they hadn't sued Santa for a real live baby Yoda, and even if they hadn't waited for after Christmas to file the suit, the Court *still* wouldn't hear it.

Why? Abstention

Abstention (I'll simplify) is a doctrine that basically says "look, Federal Courts, some things are better left to state courts. Where that's true, Federal Courts should dismiss the cases instead of hearing them.

There are a number of different situations where that comes into play, and the various abstention doctrines are known by the names of the cases that made them famous. Colorado River abstention - federal courts shouldn't take up issues already being litigated in a state court case

Burford abstention - federal courts can choose not to hear challenges to state administrative agency orders

Pullman abstention - don't assess the constitutionality of ambiguous state statutes until state courts have had an opportunity to interpret those statutes

Younger abstention (which is why Younger was on my mind earlier) - you can't hear a civil rights claim where the plaintiff is actively being prosecuted for the underlying conduct

Here, Colorado River applies, because there were state court cases challenging the election results. Detroit argued the Court should also abstain under Burford and Pullman, but Judge Parker was like "look, this is the fourth separate ground they lose on, one abstention is enough"

So, quick rundown of the latest #Squidigation decision: It's very thorough; 36 pages of Judge Parker explaining that Powell and her merry band of fuckups lose for every conceivable reason

More from Akiva Cohen

You May Also Like