506 F.Supp.3d 596
E.D. Wis.2020Background
- Plaintiff William Feehan filed suit on December 1, 2020 seeking federal relief to decertify Wisconsin’s presidential election results and to require Governor Evers to certify Donald Trump as the winner; claims alleged widespread fraud, violations of state election law, and constitutional violations.
- Certification and the governor’s Certificate of Ascertainment for Biden/Harris were completed on November 30, 2020; a partial recount had been conducted in two counties.
- Feehan sought emergency, declaratory, and injunctive relief (including seizure/preservation of voting machines and records and orders affecting certification and electors).
- Defendants (Governor Evers; Wisconsin Elections Commission and commissioners) moved to dismiss, arguing lack of Article III standing, mootness, Eleventh Amendment immunity, failure to exhaust state remedies, laches, and failure to state claims.
- The court treated the jurisdictional challenges as threshold, concluded Feehan lacked Article III standing (as voter and as a would‑be elector), found much requested relief moot or retroactive, and that §1983 and Eleventh Amendment principles barred relief against state entities in the form sought.
- The court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss, denied the injunctive motions as moot, and dismissed the case on December 9, 2020.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing | Feehan: as a registered voter (and Trump voter) and as a nominee for elector he suffered vote dilution and thus has standing | Defendants: alleged dilution is a generalized grievance; Feehan did not allege a particularized, concrete injury nor redressability; elector status does not confer independent Article III rights | No standing — plaintiff’s alleged injuries are generalized; elector status does not give Article III or prudential standing |
| Mootness / timing | Feehan: controversy remains because electors had not yet voted and some relief (preservation) remained possible | Defendants: certification/transmission and counting already occurred; much of requested relief is retrospective and therefore moot | Most requested relief was moot or could not redress plaintiff’s alleged injury; suit not justiciable in its present form |
| Eleventh Amendment and §1983 liability | Feehan: constitutional violations actionable under §1983 against state actors | Defendants: WEC is an arm of the state (not a “person” under §1983); official‑capacity claims are effectively against the state and barred by the Eleventh Amendment; Ex parte Young does not authorize relief chiefly retroactive or based on state law | WEC not suable under §1983; Eleventh Amendment bars the plaintiff’s retrospective requests; Ex parte Young does not save the claims as pled |
| State remedies / exhaustion / laches | Feehan: federal forum proper for federal claims; sought expedited federal relief | Defendants: Wisconsin statutes provide exclusive or required state procedures (recount appeals, complaint processes); plaintiff delayed and laches/prejudice apply | Court declined to reach merits given lack of jurisdiction but noted state remedies and laches arguments weigh against late‑filed extraordinary relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (injury must be concrete and particularized)
- Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) (standing is threshold jurisdictional requirement)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (Article III limits on judicial power; must have case or controversy)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (prospective injunctive relief against state officials may avoid Eleventh Amendment bar in narrow circumstances)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (States and state agencies are not “persons” under §1983)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (limitations on federal relief based on state law and Eleventh Amendment principles)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) (remedy must be tailored to the injury established for standing/redressability)
- Chiafalo v. Washington, 140 S. Ct. 2316 (2020) (electors have no rights under Article II that displace state authority over electors)
- Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437 (2007) (plaintiffs alleging only Elections Clause violations may lack standing if injury is generalized)