“Culture and practice eat documents for lunch:” Norms and procedures in the 2020 election cases

The US Supreme Court has been rightfully criticized for its role in contributing to the anti-democratic processes in the United States. However, the focus on the apex court overlooks the potential for the judiciary as a whole to support democratic institutions. In the aftermath of the 2020 US presidential election, a series of lawsuits contesting the results were filed in federal courts, overseen by judges appointed by presidents from both major parties. Despite the prevailing perception of courts as politically influenced, every one of these cases ruled against the former President Trump's claims. This research delves into the influence of judicial norms and legal profession culture, intertwined with specific procedural doctrines such as Article III standing and justiciability. The study contends that these procedural rules, deeply ingrained within the culture of the legal profession in the United States, served as a crucial mechanism upholding judicial independence. The analysis draws from the texts of the 2020 election-related court decisions and interviews with 17 legal experts, primarily consisting of federal and state Supreme Court judges.