O'Rourke v. Dominion Voting Systems, Inc.
N/A (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish Article III standing in federal court, a plaintiff must demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury that is traceable to the challenged conduct and would likely be redressed by a favorable decision; a generalized grievance shared by a large segment of the public, without a specific, individual harm, is insufficient to confer such standing.
Facts:
- In 2020, the United States held its presidential election.
- Following the election, Kevin O’Rourke, Nathaniel L. Carter, Lori Cutunilli, Larry D. Cook, Alvin Criswell, Kesha Crenshaw, Neil Yarbrough, and Amie Trapp, along with other registered voters, experienced personal feelings of anguish, anger, frustration, and a loss of faith in the government and electoral system.
- These Plaintiffs believed that Dominion Voting Systems Inc., Facebook, Inc., the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), Mark E. Zuckerberg, and Priscilla Chan, along with various state governors and election officials, engaged in a vast conspiracy to interfere with the 2020 presidential election.
- Plaintiffs alleged this conspiracy involved changing voting laws without legislative approval, using unreliable voting machines, altering votes, providing illegal voting methods, counting illegal votes, suppressing the speech of opposing voices, and disproportionately and privately funding only certain municipalities and counties.
- As a result of this alleged conduct, Plaintiffs believed their individual votes were effectively not counted, were diluted, or were otherwise discounted.
- Plaintiff Larry D. Cook's affidavit specifically mentioned his distress over his anti-vaccination and Qanon-related Facebook pages being removed from the platform.
- Plaintiffs sought various forms of relief, including a nominal damage award of $1,000 per registered voter, totaling approximately $160 billion.
Procedural Posture:
- Kevin O’Rourke, Nathaniel L. Carter, Lori Cutunilli, Larry D. Cook, Alvin Criswell, Kesha Crenshaw, Neil Yarbrough, and Amie Trapp filed a class action Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on December 22, 2020.
- Defendant Dominion Voting Systems Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 16, 2021.
- Defendant Facebook, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 16, 2021.
- The District Court stayed all disclosures and discovery pending resolution of the Motions to Dismiss on February 26, 2021.
- Plaintiffs filed oppositions to Dominion's and Facebook's Motions to Dismiss on March 9, 2021.
- Defendant Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 10, 2021.
- Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf, and Pennsylvania Acting Secretary of Commonwealth Veronica Degraffenreid each filed Motions to Dismiss between March 15 and March 18, 2021.
- Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint on March 15, 2021.
- Facebook and Dominion filed replies supporting their Motions to Dismiss on March 23, 2021.
- All remaining Defendants filed responses objecting to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint on March 29, 2021.
- Plaintiffs filed multiple replies in support of their Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint on April 8, 2021.
- On April 19 and 20, 2021, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all government official defendants from the case.
- The District Court then considered the Motions to Dismiss from Dominion, Facebook, and CTCL, and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a group of registered voters who allege that widespread irregularities, fraud, and a vast conspiracy by private and state actors during the 2020 presidential election diluted their votes and caused them mental anguish, thereby assert a sufficiently concrete and particularized injury to establish Article III standing in federal court?
Opinions:
Majority - N. Reid Neureiter
No, the plaintiffs do not assert a sufficiently concrete and particularized injury to establish Article III standing. The Court found that the gravamen of the Plaintiffs’ complaint was a "generalized grievance" about the operation of government or the actions of the defendants on the operation of government, resulting in "abstract harm to all registered voting Americans." Article III standing, as established in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins and Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, requires a plaintiff to have personally suffered a concrete and particularized injury, meaning one that affects the plaintiff in a personal and individual way, traceable to the challenged conduct, and redressable by a favorable decision. The plaintiffs' claims of vote dilution, being deprived of a fair process, and suffering mental anguish were shared by 160 million registered voters, making them undifferentiated and generalized. The Court emphasized that federal courts are not "free-wheeling enforcers of the Constitution and laws" and lack jurisdiction over such generalized grievances, citing Lance v. Coffman. Numerous other cases challenging the 2020 election were dismissed for precisely this reason. Plaintiffs' attempts to classify their injury as particularized by stating it affects "registered voters" (160 million) rather than "all Americans" (300 million) does not change the generalized nature of the harm. Furthermore, the proposed Amended Complaint, while adding more plaintiffs and claims, did not cure the standing defect as the alleged injuries remained generalized. The Court distinguished Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, noting that while nominal damages can satisfy redressability, that case involved a clear particularized injury (being stopped from speaking), which is absent here. The Court also dismissed the Plaintiffs' reliance on Anderson v. Celebreze, explaining that case involved a candidate and his supporters being denied access to the ballot, a specific and particularized injury. Since amendment would be futile due to the incurable standing deficiency, leave to amend was denied, and the case was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This case strongly reaffirms the stringent requirements for Article III standing, particularly for claims involving elections. It highlights that generalized grievances about government conduct or election integrity, even if widely felt, do not constitute a "concrete and particularized injury" necessary to invoke federal court jurisdiction. The decision is consistent with a long line of cases, especially those challenging the 2020 election, underscoring the judiciary's limited role to actual "cases and controversies" where plaintiffs can demonstrate a personal, tangible harm beyond that suffered by the public at large. This ruling will likely continue to serve as a significant barrier for future broad challenges to election results or processes that cannot articulate specific, individualized harm.
