PHILADELPHIA – A New Jersey man’s bid to invalidate the election results of U.S. President Donald Trump's victory has been turned away in now two federal courts..
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Judges Thomas L. Ambro, Cheryl Ann Krause and Richard L. Nygaard determined in a per curiam ruling on Sept. 5 that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania did not err or abuse its discretion when it dismissed the complaint filed by Darrell Prince.
Prince, of Mays Landing, N.J., first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 30, 2016, subsequent to President Trump’s November election and prior to his January inauguration.
Per the Third Circuit, Prince’s complaint is “a mix of vague allegations concerning the recent election of President Donald Trump [which] principally alleges a flawed apportionment of Electoral College voters and federal representatives, in violation of Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it additionally contends that President Trump’s financial holdings give him “unprecedented opportunities” to violate the Emoluments Clause.”
The Emoluments Clause is an obscure provision in Article I of the U.S. Constitution which states, “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
The complaint sought “an immediate delay in the electoral college proceedings, until these matters can be worked out.”
The District Court dismissed the case for lack of standing, leading Prince to appeal to the Third Circuit – who noted Prince needed to demonstrate: “(1) An injury-in-fact; (2) A sufficient causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) A likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.”
Simply stated, the Third Circuit felt Prince did not meet any of those criteria.
“We agree with the District Court that Prince lacks standing to bring this suit because he has suffered no injury particularized to him. Indeed, we have already determined that individuals such as Prince lack standing to challenge a President’s eligibility to serve,” the Third Circuit said, referring to the Berg v. Obama case from 2009.
“Accordingly, the District Court did not err when it dismissed Prince’s complaint, and it did not abuse its discretion in doing so without leave to amend. The motion for oral argument is denied,” the Third Circuit concluded.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit case 17-1482
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:16-cv-06702
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at email@example.com