2020 Election Challenges: after Supreme Court ruling
<p>The <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/a/59113/10793">US Supreme Court</a> has ruled against hearing 2020 election challenges after ~50+ defeats in lower courts.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Does POTUS' lawyers have any other judicial mechanisms to challenge
the 2020 election?</p>
</li>
<li><p>Does the electoral college vote on the 14 December, render any
further challenges moot?</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Please bear in mind I am not a lawyer and seek to understand the contours of the law</p>

<p><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The first court order was simple</a>. Little more than a <em>text only</em> answer. It is <em>in the middle</em> of people filing amicus letters, among them <em>fake states</em>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It was verbatim repeated as <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">better readable text</a> some hours later together with a simple writ of certiorari later the day. The relevant point is, the case <strong>was received</strong> (unlike  <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120820zr_bq7d.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Kelly v PA</a>, which was denied outright!), filed and it did fail at the very first step, because of <strong>lack of standing</strong>. No, Texas can't sue. And neither can any of the other people that tried to weigh in. No standing means no lawsuit. That's not just denying to hear it, this made any and all case that is similar to this impossible as those few lines have become precedent.</p>
<p>Now, that case is over. But what about any pending or planned litigation? I suggest to have <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEaHnFnGVTk" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Kurt explain the order and what might be more</a>, but I can give some quick 2 words:</p>
<p>There are <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/section-1/laches" rel="nofollow noreferrer">laches</a>. Laches means in a simple way, that you have to act in time or you lose your case. If you let the cutoff date get too close for the parties to weigh in or the judges to even read your papers, you can't get an injunction (or a ruling). And it would need an injunction to stop anything. If anything, any case should have been brought sooner - and since we have no time travel...</p>
<p>There's <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/mootness" rel="nofollow noreferrer">mootness</a> <em>also</em> applies: once the electors meet, every case that tries to decertify them is simply moot, as it is no longer an &quot;actual, ongoing cases or controversies&quot; - the thing sued to not happen did already happen!</p>
<p>or, let me quote StarWars: <strong>The War is Over.</strong> At least the one in courts.</p>

elections