Litigation clouds are once again gathering over the U.S. Supreme Court, a familiar storm that could rival the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election. Nearly four years ago, Donald Trump and his allies flooded the judiciary with more than 60 legal challenges, contesting his loss to Joe Biden, only to be repeatedly defeated in courtrooms across America. Hopeful for a last-minute victory from his handpicked conservative justices, Trump was ultimately left empty-handed as the Supreme Court declined to engage.
Now, as Trump makes a renewed bid for the presidency, history threatens to repeat itself. With Election Day imminent, the nation’s highest court braces for the possibility of another onslaught of disputes, potentially sparked by a razor-thin race against Democratic contender, Vice President Kamala Harris. Echoes of old battles have already resurfaced, like the ongoing saga of mail-in ballot disputes in battleground Pennsylvania, hinting at a litigious future that could mirror the past.
Experts remain skeptical of a major Supreme Court intervention. “The question isn’t whether they’ll bring these claims; it’s whether the court will give them any serious attention,” remarked David Becker, from the Center for Election Innovation & Research. He predicts that the court’s doors will likely stay closed to most election challenges, especially those without robust legal footing.
The court’s conservative majority, bolstered by three Trump appointees, has already granted him notable victories this year, such as reinstating his eligibility for Colorado’s ballot and affirming his broad immunity from criminal charges related to his 2020 election efforts. Yet, even with this conservative slant, attorneys anticipate steep barriers for any attempts to overturn a loss through post-election litigation.
While the specter of a Supreme Court-decided election looms—a haunting memory of 2000’s Bush v. Gore showdown—today’s landscape appears less fertile for judicial intervention. Lawsuits targeting new election rules have largely floundered, as state courts swiftly address challenges, especially in key states like Georgia. A recently enacted law, the Electoral Count Reform Act, aims to mitigate Congressional chaos, further reducing the avenues for crisis-level disputes.
Wendy Weiser from NYU’s Brennan Center for Justice is less worried about legal proceedings determining the presidency. Instead, she warns of a more insidious effect: litigation’s role in sowing doubt among voters. “This isn’t just about winning in court,” Weiser noted. “It’s a strategy to undermine faith in the electoral process, eroding trust in a result that should be clear.”
As this drama unfolds, the Supreme Court stands poised, aware that its decisions—if they come—could once again become pivotal moments in the story of American democracy.
