From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
502 F. Supp. 3d 899 (2020)
In October 2019, the General Assembly of Pennsylvania enacted Act 77, allowing registered voters in Pennsylvania to vote by mail. In response to COVID-19, in March 2020, the General Assembly enacted laws in the election code regulating mail-in voting, including that ballots must be placed in secrecy envelopes and received by the elections board by 8:00 p.m. on election day. The election code did not contain any reference to the process of curing ballots or the practice of notice-and-cure, which was the practice of notifying voters who submitted defective mail-in ballots and allowing the voters to cure the deficiencies. Counties were permitted to adopt such practices but not required. John Henry and Lawrence Roberts (plaintiffs) submitted mail-in ballots in the 2020 presidential election. Both men’s ballots were canceled, and neither was given an opportunity to cure his ballot. The results of the 2020 election in Pennsylvania indicating Joseph Biden as the winner were to become official on November 23, 2020, once counties certified their results to Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar (defendant). Henry and Roberts, along with Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. (the Trump Campaign), sought to enjoin the certification of the votes. Henry and Roberts and the Trump Campaign filed suit in district court on November 9, 2020. After changes in counsel, Henry and Roberts and the Trump Campaign filed an amended complaint on November 15, 2020, alleging a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Henry and Roberts and the Trump Campaign claimed that it was unconstitutional for Pennsylvania to give counties discretion to adopt a notice-and-cure policy because it created an arbitrary system in which some persons were allowed to cure their ballots but others were not. Boockvar filed a motion to dismiss.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Brann, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 602,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 602,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.