I'm not going to trust a news organization's word. NBC 29 source: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/203371np.pdf > The Trump Presidential Campaign asserts that Pennsylvania’s 2020 election was unfair. But as lawyer Rudolph Giuliani stressed, the Campaign “doesn’t plead fraud. . . . [T]his is not a fraud case.” Mot. to Dismiss Hr’g Tr. 118:19–20, 137:18. Instead, it objects that Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State and some counties restricted poll watchers and let voters fix technical defects in their mail-in ballots. It offers nothing more. > This case is not about whether those claims are true. Rather, the Campaign appeals on a very narrow ground: whether the District Court abused its discretion in not letting the Campaign amend its complaint a second time. It did not Washington Post article makes it difficult because it's mainly narrative and no primary sources provided. The first specific case it refers to is the one above (from NBC 29 - I can tell by the judge's name: Bibas). The second one, I was able to find by the judge's name (Ludwig). The tone that [the decision](https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/12/2020-12-12-Decision-And-Order-dckt-134_0.pdf) ([brief summary](https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=406)) was written in is cringeworthy (pearl necklace clutching almost the whole way). I read quite a few pages of the PDF but it's long. Basically, it considered a fraction of the complaint and dismissed other parts as "unreasonable delay". It centers around changes to election law being made outside of the legislature, involving "indefinitely confined voters" and chain of custody issues (absentee drop boxes). The entire decision PDF only contains the word "fraud" once, and it wasn't even about any specific allegation of fraud. As for "unreasonable delay", even the partisan Washington Post admits: > In a blizzard of lawsuits across the country, Trump’s campaign and allied groups argued there were widespread problems with both the administration of the election and ballot security. This has been going on from the get-go, despite claims to the contrary. Indeed, Trump was vocal (such as on Twitter) many months before the election, railing against states undermining election integrity using COVID-19 as a justification. Arguments of "unreasonable delay" strike me as dishonest (or misleading as best) - the legal team has had a huge work load and has been very busy (yet still able to produce a lot of filings, motions, etc). That's the last specific court case I see Washington Post refer to (by naming a judge), but they continue, saying: > Judges consistently found there was no substantive evidence to support claims of fraud and irregularities — that Biden’s votes were, in fact, legal votes. But you look at the rulings themselves, and they reveal Washington Post's narratives to not have much substance. I could keep going, but it's too time consuming to try to find evidence from primary sources that backs up your (and MSM) claims, and I've already put in a good faith effort assuming what you provided first was foremost. Edit: I found more, further down in the article. One of them is an opinion from a Nevada judge (source PDF provided in a linked article). I'll look at it too, but avoid editing this comment further.