CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/24/2023 1

No Relief from a State Supreme Court’s Extension 

of the Deadline for Receipt of Cast Ballots 

Because the Action Was Brought 

Too Close to the Election 

Bognet v. Boockvar (Kim R. Gibson, W.D. Pa. 3:20-cv-215) 

A federal complaint challenged a decision by a state supreme court 

regarding a deadline accommodation for mailed ballots at a time of 

degraded mail service and a global infectious pandemic. The district 

judge decided that the case had merit, but immediate relief could 

not be granted only days before the election. The court of appeals 

affirmed her decision, and the Supreme Court ultimately ordered 

the case dismissed as moot. 

Subject: Absentee and early voting. Topics: Absentee ballots; 

enjoining certification; laches; matters for state courts; Covid-19; 

intervention; interlocutory appeal; case assignment. 

On October 22, 2020, a congressional candidate and four voters filed a federal complaint in the Western District of Pennsylvania against the secretary of 

the commonwealth and all sixty-seven county boards of elections challenging 

a September 17 decision by Pennsylvania’s supreme court.1 The Pennsylvania 

court, among other things, established 

a three-day extension of the absentee and mail-in ballot received-by deadline to allow for the tabulation of ballots mailed by voters via the [United 

States Postal Service (USPS)] and postmarked by 8:00 p.m. on Election Day 

to reduce voter disenfranchisement resulting from the conflict between the 

Election Code and the current USPS delivery standards, given the expected 

number of Pennsylvanians opting to use mail-in ballots during the [global 

infectious Covid-19] pandemic.2

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to stay the Pennsylvania decision on 

October 19.3

1. Complaint, Bognet v. Boockvar, No. 3:20-cv-215 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 22, 2020), D.E. 1; 

Bognet v. Sec’y Commonwealth of Pa., 980 F.3d 336, 345 (3d Cir. 2020); see Angela Coulombis & Marie Albiges, Barrett Could Be the Key if Pa. Battle Back in Court, Phila. Inquirer, 

Oct. 23, 2020, at A3. 

2. Pa. Democratic Party v. Boockvar, 662 Pa. 39, 238 A.3d 345, 371 (2020), cert. denied, 

593 U.S. ___, 141 S. Ct. 732 (2021); see Bognet, 980 F.3d at 344–45 (“the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that [the postal service’s] existing delivery standards could not meet 

the timeline built into the Election Code and the circumstances beyond voters’ control 

should not lead to their disenfranchisement”). 

3. Scarnati v. Boockvar, 592 U.S. ___, 141 S. Ct. 644 (2020) (stay application by the president pro tempore and the majority leader of Pennsylvania’s senate); Republican Party of Pa. 

v. Boockvar, 592 U.S. ___, 141 S. Ct. 643 (2020) (stay application by the Republican Party of 

Pennsylvania, an intervenor in the state case); see Bognet, 980 F.3d at 345; see also Stephen 

Vladeck, The Shadow Docket 215–16. 
No Relief from a State Supreme Court’s Extension of the Deadline for Receipt of Cast Ballots 

Because the Action Was Brought Too Close to the Election 

2 Federal Judicial Center 10/24/2023 

With their complaint, the plaintiffs in the Western District case filed a 

motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.4

Judge Kim R. Gibson set the case for a videoconference hearing on October 27.5

 On the day before the hearing, she granted the Democratic National 

Committee’s motion to intervene as a defendant.6

 She denied the secretary’s 

October 24 motion to transfer the case to Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan,7 who on 

October 10 denied relief regarding ballot drop boxes, mail-in ballot signatures, and restrictions on poll watchers,8

 and who on October 23 denied a 

temporary restraining order regarding the exclusion of poll watchers from 

some election locations.9

Although Judge Gibson determined that the complaint had merit, she 

denied immediate relief on October 28, “less than one week prior to the [November 3] election date.”10

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success 

on their claim that the counting of ballots received after Election Day but 

before 5:00 p.m. on November 6, 2020, without a postmark or with an illegible postmark creates a preferred class of voters and violates their rights under the Equal Protection Clause. . . . [However,] the Court determines that 

it is required to deny Plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief because Plaintiffs raised their claim on the eve of the election, despite the likelihood of 

success on the merits of their Equal Protection Claim.11

The court of appeals affirmed her decision on November 13,12 but the 

Supreme Court vacated the affirmance on April 19, 2021, finding the case to 

be moot.13 Judge Gibson dismissed the case on July 19.14

4. Motion, Bognet, No. 3:20-cv-215 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 22, 2020), D.E. 5. 

5. Docket Sheet, id. (Oct. 22, 2020); see Minutes, id. (Oct. 28, 2020), D.E. 76. 

6. Order, id. (Oct. 26, 2020), D.E. 36; see Motion, id. (Oct. 24, 2020), D.E. 23. 

7. Order, id. (Oct. 26, 2020), D.E. 51; see Motion, id. (Oct. 24, 2020), D.E. 256. 

8. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar, 493 F. Supp. 3d 331 (W.D. Pa. 2020). 

9. Transcript at 8, Parnell v. Allegheny Cty. Bd. of Elections, No. 2:20-cv-1570 (W.D. Pa. 

Oct. 23, 2020, filed Oct. 26, 2020), D.E. 55. 

10. Opinion at 8, Bognet, No. 3:20-cv-215 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 28, 2020), D.E. 77 [hereinafter 

W.D. Pa. Opinion], 2020 WL 6323121; Bognet v. Sec’y Commonwealth of Pa., 980 F.3d 336, 

346 (3d Cir. 2020) (“The District Court commendably accommodated Plaintiffs’ request for 

an expedited hearing, then expeditiously issued a thoughtful memorandum order on October 28 . . . .”). 

11. W.D. Pa. Opinion, supra note 10, at 7–8. 

12. Bognet, 980 F.3d 336. 

13. Bognet v. Degraffenreid, 593 U.S. ___, 141 S. Ct. 2508 (2021); see Jonathan Lai, Last 

Pa. Election Challenge Is Tossed, Phila. Inquirer, Apr. 20, 2021, at B1. 

14. Order, Bognet, No. 3:20-cv-215 (W.D. Pa. July 19, 2021), D.E. 116.