# Trump v. Raffensperger

Supreme Court of Georgia Case No. S21M0561
December 12, 2020
The Honorable Supreme Court met pursuant to adjournment.
The following order was passed:
Donald J. Trump et al. v. Brad Raffensperger et al.
To the extent that the petition can be construed as a direct appeal from the December 9 order, we note as an initial matter that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over “election contest[s],” Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. II (2), and the underlying case fits within that definition, as it is challenging the result of an election. See Cook v. Bd. of Registrars of Randolph County, 291 Ga. 67, 70 (727 SE2d 478) (2012). However, the December 9 order is not a final judgment, see OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1) (direct appeals may be taken from “[a]ll final judgments, that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the court below”), and therefore petitioners were required to follow interlocutory appeal procedures in order to obtain review of the order. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Duke v. State, 306 Ga. 171, 171 (829 SE2d 348) (2019). Although there are some exceptions to that general rule, this case does not fit within any ​of those exceptions. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (2)–(13) (setting out directly appealable non-final orders).
Additionally, petitioners’ reliance on the collateral order doctrine is unavailing. See Duke, 306 Ga. at 174. Furthermore, to the extent petitioners challenge the authority of the superior court judge to preside over the pending matter, it does not appear that any order has been entered on the challenge to her authority that they represent has been filed below, and thus this issue provides no basis for invoking the Court’s jurisdiction. See Titelman v. Stedman, 277 Ga. 460, 461 (591 SE2d 774) (2003) (order is not appealable until written, signed by judge, and filed with the clerk).
Finally to the extent that petitioners seek original relief, petitioners have not shown that this is one of those extremely rare cases that would invoke our original jurisdiction. See generally Brown v. Johnson, 251 Ga. 436 (306 SE2d 655) (1983). Accordingly for all these reasons, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition and dismisses it.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA Clerk's Office, Atlanta
I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Supreme Court of Georgia.
Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year above written.
A personal signature appears here
Clerk
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse