Should the court dismiss the United States' lawsuit?
The district court dismissed the case on November 1 for lack of standing. The United States appealed the same day, and its Ninth Circuit opening brief is due December 14.
Alaska and the intervenors ask the court to dismiss the original complaint
The Peltola campaign and the DSCC asked to file their own motion to dismiss alongside their request to join the case.
Alaska's election officials moved to dismiss the original complaint and asked the court to rule quickly, before Election Day.
The court sped up briefing, then let both intervenor groups in and accepted their motions to dismiss as filed.
The United States opposed dismissal of its original complaint.
Citing a news report, the United States filed an amended complaint that added a Supremacy Clause claim.
Because the amended complaint replaced the original, the court set aside the first round of motions to dismiss without deciding them.
Alaska and the intervenors ask the court to dismiss the amended complaint
Alaska, the Peltola campaign and DSCC, and the League group each moved to dismiss, arguing in part that probing votes breaks ballot secrecy.
- Docket entry 55 (opens the public source in a new tab)
- Docket entry 53 (opens the public source in a new tab)
- Docket entry 54 (opens the public source in a new tab)
- Docket entry 57 (opens the public source in a new tab)
- Docket entry 59 (opens the public source in a new tab)
- Docket entry 60 (opens the public source in a new tab)
- Docket entry 61 (opens the public source in a new tab)
The court ordered the United States to respond to all three motions by October 30, with replies due October 31.
The United States opposed all three motions and said the court could order ballots set apart for review.
Alaska and both intervenor groups filed replies supporting dismissal.
No standing: no order could fix the harm without breaking ballot secrecy. Dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend.
The United States asks the Ninth Circuit to review the dismissal
The United States appealed the order dismissing the case and the judgment.
The Ninth Circuit opened appeal No. 26-7304. The United States' opening brief is due December 14, 2026, and the answering brief January 11, 2027.
Next step: United States' opening brief due
Should the court grant the United States a preliminary injunction?Moot ·
The United States wanted ballots ranking the second Sullivan set apart and fast discovery. The court denied the request as moot when it dismissed the case.
The United States asks for an injunction and fast discovery
The United States asked that ballots ranking Daniel J. Sullivan be set apart, and for quick discovery from the Peltola campaign and the DSCC.
Alaska opposed expediting the injunction and discovery requests, and both intervenor groups joined that opposition.
Having dismissed the case, the court denied the injunction and expedite requests as moot without deciding them.
Should David Reid Weber be allowed to join the case?Moot ·
Weber, a write-in candidate who says he ranked the second Sullivan on purpose, asked to join as a defendant. The court denied his requests as moot when it dismissed the case.
David Reid Weber asks to join the case as a defendant
Weber, a write-in candidate who says he ranked the second Sullivan on purpose, asked to join the case and later asked for a fast ruling.
Having dismissed the case, the court denied Weber's requests as moot without deciding them.
Should the court accept the proposed friend-of-the-court briefs?Yes: all three briefs accepted ·
Thomas Lamb, Richard Hasen, and the NAACP asked to file briefs. The court granted all three requests and accepted the briefs on November 1.
Thomas Lamb, Richard Hasen, and the NAACP ask to file friend-of-the-court briefs
Lamb asked to file a brief opposing the relief the United States sought, and later pointed the court to additional authority.
Hasen asked to file a brief supporting Alaska, then filed a corrected version.
The NAACP and its regional conference asked, without opposition, to file a brief supporting neither side.
In its dismissal order, the court granted all three requests and accepted the briefs as filed.
Should the Peltola campaign and voter groups join as defendants?Yes: both groups may join as defendants ·
Yes. After the United States partly dropped its opposition, the court let Alaskans for Mary, the DSCC, and the League of Women Voters group defend the case.
The Peltola campaign, the DSCC, and voter groups ask to join as defendants
Alaskans for Mary and the DSCC, and separately the League of Women Voters group, asked to join the case as defendants and sought a quick ruling.
The court ordered the United States to respond by October 27 and allowed replies by October 28.
Alaska's election officials told the court they did not oppose either request.
The United States opposed both requests, then withdrew part of its opposition a day later.
Both groups filed replies supporting their requests to join.
The court granted both motions and accepted each group's motion to dismiss as filed.