## Facts

- Following the November 2020 presidential election, a presidential campaign sued Pennsylvania’s election secretary and several counties, challenging administration of mail-in ballots.
- The complaint focused on two alleged non-uniform practices across counties:
  - Some counties notified voters of certain technical ballot defects and allowed opportunities to remedy them (e.g., via provisional ballots), while other counties did not.
  - The campaign alleged unequal or inadequate access for its poll watchers to observe mail-ballot canvassing.
- The campaign sought extraordinary relief, including blocking certification and invalidating large categories of mail-in ballots.
- The campaign did not plead fraud and conceded the case was not a fraud action.
- The district court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice, denied injunctive relief, and denied leave to file a proposed second amended complaint as futile; it declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
- The campaign appealed the denial of leave to amend and the denial of injunctive relief.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to file a second amended complaint as futile.
2. Whether the campaign stated plausible federal claims—primarily under the Equal Protection Clause—sufficient to show a likelihood of success on the merits and justify extraordinary injunctive relief affecting election certification and counted ballots.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the federal claims with prejudice.
- The court affirmed denial of leave to amend because the proposed second amended complaint remained futile and failed to state a plausible federal claim.
- The court affirmed denial of injunctive relief because the campaign failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits and sought relief that was sweeping and inequitable.

## Legal Principles

- A court may deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile because the proposed pleading would still fail to state a claim.
- Equal Protection challenges to election administration require plausible allegations of arbitrary and disparate treatment of voters (or relevant groups) attributable to state action; county-to-county variation permitted by state election structure, without more, does not establish a federal constitutional violation.
- Allegations must satisfy ordinary federal pleading standards; conclusory assertions that an election was “unfair” are insufficient without specific supporting facts.
- Federal law does not generally require states to provide ballot-defect “curing” procedures or to grant poll watchers any particular level of access; absent a viable constitutional theory, such disputes are chiefly matters of state election administration.
- Extraordinary injunctive relief that would invalidate large numbers of ballots or disenfranchise voters is disfavored absent clear, specific allegations showing a serious constitutional violation and a strong connection between the violation and the requested remedy.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that the campaign’s proposed pleadings did not plausibly allege a federal constitutional violation arising from non-uniform county practices regarding ballot curing or poll-watcher observation, and it therefore affirmed dismissal, denial of leave to amend as futile, and denial of extraordinary injunctive relief that would have broadly affected certification and counted votes.


Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Sec'y of Pa., 830 F. App'x 377 (3d Cir. 2020)