Supreme Court Makes Decision on Dominion Voting Systems Case
On December 6, 2022, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case involving Facebook, a social media company, and Dominion Voting Systems, a voting machine company. Let’s explore the details of the lawsuit with Ehline Law and our civil rights personal injury attorneys.
Lawsuit Alleges Election Fraud and Manipulation by Facebook and Dominion Voting Systems
Kevin O’Rourke and seven other plaintiffs had filed a case against Facebook and Dominion Voting Machines for influencing the 2020 elections. However, in May 2022, U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Tymkovich rejected the lawsuit.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals asked the Supreme Court to intervene after O’Rourke requested the court understand the purpose behind bringing the civil action. According to O’Rourke, the plaintiffs wanted to fortify the elections after allegations surfaced that the social media giant regulated information to mislead the public.
O’Rourke explained how the CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, and his wife spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the shape of “Covid-19 relief grants” to influence and control the local elections.
The complaint alleges that Dominion Voting Systems and their software led to the switch in hundreds of thousands of votes during the 2020 presidential election, exposing vulnerabilities and lack of transparency in the election technology industry. It stated that Dominion’s voting system is purposely built to maneuver and control elections, leading to systematic fraud and influencing election results.
O’Rourke argued against the fraudulent system and how the defendant used illegal votes and manipulative unconstitutional policies to dilute and alter votes. The lawsuit holds those with the power to influence and cover up unconstitutional behavior liable for the damages.
When taking the case to the Supreme Court after rejection from the lower courts, the plaintiffs also provided the apex court with the District Court ruling that stated the plaintiffs did not suffer any injuries or demonstrate judicially cognizable interest, and, therefore, they do not have a legal standing to sue.
According to the District Court ruling, the lawsuit is only a generalized grievance about how the government runs its operations or how the defendant influenced the government’s operations that caused abstract harm to the United States voters. The appellate court did not study the case’s merits and agreed that the plaintiffs had no legal standing to sue.
Since the plaintiff did not suffer any injuries, the appellate court also confirmed the ruling made by the District Court that it was a generalized grievance and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any damages to themselves or other voters to have the standing to sue.
In the plaintiff’s appeal to the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs mention the damage done to the status of the Americans by using divisive rhetoric and stripping the Americans of their rights. The appeal explained how citizens aiming to strengthen election integrity are now denied their voting rights and labeled domestic terrorists.
The appeal mentioned how the country’s founders did not fight to have private people administer the general elections and influence them through an illegitimate adjudication process. It further states that the citizens have suffered serious injuries from private individuals who have burdened the rights of Americans.
Dominion Sues MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell for Baseless Claims
In February 2021, Dominion sued MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell and Trump allies Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani for defamation by making baseless accusations and stirring up conspiracy theories against the company. Many Trump allies claimed that the voting machine company pushed for adjustments in election laws without legislative approval.
In the defamation lawsuit against Lindell, Dominion states that Lindell forced the “big lie” that Former President Donald Trump had won the 2020 presidential elections and made baseless claims that the company manipulated the voting machines.
Dominion argued that Lindell knew that the allegations made were not true. However, Lindell’s attorney argued that the defendant believed the claims he made.
These are not the only defamation lawsuits filed by Dominion, as the company also sent notices to Fox News and many conservative media outlets.
Elements of Standing to Sue
In the case Kevin O’Rourke et al. v. Dominion Voting Systems et al., the Supreme court denied certiorari, effectively dismissing the case as there was no standing to sue. The legal concept of standing to sue requires the plaintiff to be a “proper” party to request adjudication or compensation.
A person must have legal grounds to bring a valid lawsuit, and there are three elements of standing to sue, including the following.
Injury
The most critical element to bring a valid lawsuit is that the person must suffer from an actual injury which could include physical, mental, or emotional injuries or economic loss.
The injury must have already occurred before the person can bring a lawsuit and cannot be an injury that may happen in the future.
Causation
Another critical element is causation, meaning there must be a connection between the injury and the defendant’s actions or inactions. For example, you can sue a negligent car driver for your injuries, but you cannot sue the at-fault party’s brother.
Redressability
Redressability is concerned with whether the judicial system can provide relief to the person filing the lawsuit. If you’re filing a lawsuit, you must seek remedy for the injuries sustained. Whether it is negligence or actual malice, in most personal injury cases, injured victims seek financial compensation for their loss.
Why Did the Supreme Court Decline to Hear the Case?
Because the Plaintiffs failed to allege they were damaged, aka lacked standing. Here, the plaintiffs only alleged other people were harmed instead of producing a plaintiff who actually had been harmed. Before the Supreme Court declined the case, the lower courts stated there was no legal standing to sue. As mentioned, the plaintiffs must demonstrate injuries to have a valid case. In the case of Kevin O’Rourke et al. v. Dominion Voting Systems et al., O’Rourke failed to prove any injuries suffered from the “election fraud” carried out by the defendant.
The outcome of the case could be completely different if O’Rourke had strong legal representation who made better factual arguments. An experienced attorney can help build a strong case and ensure that it fulfills all the necessary elements to stand in court.
Schedule a Free Consultation with Ehline Law Civil Rights Lawyers
Whether it is the infliction of emotional distress, physical injuries, or emotional harm, our personal injury attorneys have over 15 years of experience helping protect the rights of injured victims.
If you suffered injuries due to another’s negligence, contact us at (833) LETS-SUE for a free consultation, as you may be eligible for compensation.
