Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Abigail Lauters, et al., Petitioners v. Robert B. Evnen, Nebraska Secretary of State, et al.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

United States Appeals Court of the Eighth Circuit

Judgment and Order...................................................... la

Nebraska

District

CourtMemorandum

and

Order............................................................................. 7a

Constitutional

and

statutory

provisions

involved........................................................................12a

la

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No: 25-2245

Abigail Lauters; Mary Leask; Phillip Thompson; Anthony

Lauters; Tre'Velle Ellis

Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

Robert B. Evnen, Nebraska Secretary of State, in his

official capacity; Wayne Bena, Nebraska Elections

Division, Deputy Secretary of State for Elections, in his

official capacity; Andrew Buller, Nebraska Elections

Division, Assistant Deputy for Elections, in his official

capacity

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from U.S. District Court for the District of

Nebraska - Lincoln (4:24-cv-03175-JMG)

JUDGMENT

Before BENTON,

Judges.

SHEPHERD,

and STRAS,

Circuit

2a

This appeal from the United States District Court

was submitted on the record of the district court and

briefs of the parties.

After consideration, it is hereby ordered and

adjudged that the judgment of the district court in this

case is affirmed in accordance with the opinion of this

Court.

November 13, 2025

Order Entered in Accordance with Opinion:

Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth

/s/ Susan E. Bindler

Circuit.

3a

Appellate Case: 25-2245 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/13/2025

Entry ID: 5577708

United States Court of Appeals

For The Eighth Circuit

Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse

111 South 10th Street, Room 24.329

St. Louis, Missouri 63102

Susan E. Bindler

Clerk of Court

VOICE (314) 244-2400

FAX (314) 244-2780

www.ca8.uscourts.gov

November 13, 2025

Abigail Lauters

127 E. 14th Street

Hastings, NE 68901

RE: 25-2245 Abigail Lauters, et al v. Robert Evnen, et al

Dear Abigail Lauters:

The court has issued an opinion in this case.

Judgment has been entered in accordance with the

opinion.

Please review Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure and the Eighth Circuit Rules on post­

submission procedure to ensure that any contemplated

filing is timely and in compliance with the rules. Note

particularly that petitions for rehearing and petitions for

rehearing en banc must be received in the clerk's office

within 14 days of the date of the entry of judgment.

Counsel-filed petitions must be filed electronically in

4a

CM/ECF. Paper copies are not required. Except as

provided by Rule 25(a)(2)(iii) of the Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, no grace period for mailing is

allowed. Any petition for rehearing or petition for

rehearing en banc which is not received within the 14 day

period for filing permitted by FRAP 40 may be denied as

untimely.

Susan E. Bindler

Clerk of Court

BNW

Enclosure (s)

Cc:

Ryan Baker

Cody Steven Barnett

Clerk, U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska

Tre’Velle Ellis

Christopher A. Felts

Lincoln J. Korell

Anthony Lauters

Mary Leask

Phillip Thompson

District Court/Agency Case Number(s):

4:24-cv-03175-JMG

5a

Appellate Case: 25-2245 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/13/2025

Entry ID: 5577703

Xlniteb States (Sourt of Qlppeats

^or tl)c (Sigljtt) Circuit

No. 25-2245

Abigail Lauters; Mary Leask; Phillip Thompson; Anthony

Lauters; Tre’Velle Ellis

Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

Robert B. Evnen, Nebraska Secretary of State, in his

official capacity; Wayne Bena, Nebraska Elections

Division, Deputy Secretary of State for Elections, in his

official capacity; Andrew Buller, Nebraska Elections

Division, Assistant Deputy for Elections, in his official

capacity

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln

6a

Appellate Case: 25-2245 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/13/2025

Entry ID: 5577703

Submitted: November 7, 2025

Filed: November 13, 2025

[Unpublished]

Before BENTON,SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Abigail Lauters and four other prospective presidential

electors for independent presidential candidate Dr. Shiva

Ayyadurai appeal the district court’s1 dismissal of their

pro se complaint. After careful de novo review of the

record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, this court

finds no basis for reversal. See Abdurrahman v. Dayton,

903 F.3d 813, 816 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard of review).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

'The Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States

District Judge for the District of Nebraska.

-2-

7a

Appellate Case: 25-2245 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/13/2025

Entry ID: 5577703

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

ABIGAIL LAUTERS, et al.,

4:24-CV-3175

Plaintiffs,

Judgement

vs.

NEBRASKA SECRETARY OF

STATE, Robert B. Evnen, in

his official capacity, et al.,

Defendants.

For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum

and order, the plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed without

prejudice.

Dated this 28th day of May, 2025.

BY THE COURT:

United States District Judge

8a

4:24-cv-03175-JMG-MDN Doc # 19 Filed: 05/28/25 Page 1 of

5 - Page ID # 186

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

ABIGAIL LAUTERS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

4:24-CV-3175

MEMORANDUM

vs.

AND ORDER

NEBRASKA SECRETARY OF

STATE, Robert B. Evnen, in

his official capacity, et al.,

Defendants.

The plaintiffs were pledged electors for an

independent candidate for President of the United States

in the November 2024 election. They allege that the

defendants,

Nebraska

state

election

officials,

unconstitutionally excluded them from the 2024 general

election ballot. This matter is before the Court on the

defendants' motion to dismiss. Filing 12. The case will be

dismissed as moot.

I. BACKGROUND

The facts of this case are largely detailed in the Court's

9a

earlier memorandum and order denying the plaintiffs'

motion for a preliminary injunction. Filing 11. In sum, the

plaintiffs seek relief for alleged violations of their

constitutional rights after the defendants refused to place

their pledged candidate on the November 2024 general

election ballot. See filing 1 at 2. The defendants did not

put the plaintiffs' candidate on the ballot because he is

ineligible to serve as President of the United States. See

filing 1 at 34.

The complaint asks the Court to permanently

enjoin the defendants "from removing the Plaintiffs and

the 5 Elector Candidates" from the that would otherwise

be moot can be adjudicated if two criteria are met: (1) the

challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully

litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there

is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining

party will be subject to the same action again. Whitfield, 3

F.4th at 1047 (citing Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147,

149 (1975)); see also FEC v. Wise. Right to Life, Inc., 551

U.S. 449, 463 (2007); Ark. AFL-CIO v. FCC, 11 F.3d 1430,

1436 (8th Cir. 1993). As the party invoking this exception,

the plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating it applies.

Whitfield, 3 F.4th at 1047.

The defendants assert, even if this case meets the

first criteria, the plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden

of showing that they will be subject to the same action

again. Filing 13 at 9; see Whitfield, 3 F.4th at 1048. The

Eighth Circuit has firmly held that parties invoking the

capable-of-repetition- yet-evading-review exception must

"demonstrate a reasonable expectation that [they] will be

subject to the challenged laws again," even in a case about

ballot access or elections. Whitfield, 3 F.4th at 1048. The

Court of Appeals relied, in part, on the Supreme Court's

holding that when a party "credibly claimed that it

planned on" engaging in similar behavior, subject to the

same challenged regulations, then there existed "a

reasonable expectation that the same controversy

10a

involving the same party [would] recur." Id. (quoting Wise.

Right to Life, 551 U.S. at 463-64) (alteration in original);

accord Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 736 (2008).

The plaintiffs make no effort to argue or

demonstrate a reasonable expectation that they will be

subject to the challenged laws again. See filing 14 at 12-13.

Rather, the plaintiffs insist that they are not required to do

so. It's true that courts in other circuits have not

uniformly enforced the second prong of the

capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception. E.g.,

Marshall, 2025 WL 869061, at *1; Lupo v. Hargett, No.

3:24-cv-1088, 2024 WL 4583524, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 25,

2024) (case was not moot because there was "a

reasonable expectation that these or other similarly

situated elector candidates" could be subject to the

challenged action); but see Stop Reckless Econ.

Instability Caused by Democrats v. FEC, 814 F.3d 221,

229-31 (4th Cir. 2016). But this Court is bound to apply the

precedent of this circuit. E.g. Hood v. United States, 342

F.3d 861, 864 (2003). The plaintiffs cannot avoid their

"minor but important burden" of demonstrating a

reasonable expectation that they will be subject to the

same challenged actions again, even if that challenge

relates to an election decision. Raak Law v Gast, 686 F.

Supp. 3d 774, 780 (S.D. Iowa 2023); see also

Indep. -Alliance Party of Minn. v. Simon, 646 F. Supp. 3d

1018, 1026 (D. Minn. 2022); Stop Reckless Econ.

Instability Caused by Democrats v. FEC, 814 F.3d 221,

229-31 (4th Cir. 2016)

There is no indication that Dr. Shiva will run for

president again. See Ayyadurai v. N.J. Democratic State

Comm., No. 24-342, slip. op. (U.S. Nov. 18, 2024), denying

cert, to No. S-122 (N.J. Aug. 16, 2024). Nor have the

plaintiffs presented any reason to expect that they will

engage in "materially similar" behavior that will be subject

to the same challenged conduct. See Wise. Right to Life,

551 U.S. at 463.

Ila

This controversy is not live. "Time machines aside,"

to order the defendants to place the name of the plaintiffs'

chosen candidate on the November 2024 ballot "would be

the very definition of1 ineffectual relief. Noem, 41 F.4th at

1016. Nor would the requested declaratory relief have any

consequence on an election that ended several months

ago. See id.; Raak Law, 686 F. Supp. 3d at 779. There's

nothing the Court can do to redress the plaintiffs' alleged

injury, and the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they

may be subject to the same challenged action again. This

case is moot.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The defendants' motion to (filing 12) is granted.

2. The plaintiffs complaint is dismissed without

prejudice.

3. A separate judgment will be entered.

Dated this 28th day of May, 2025.

Inior United States District Judge

12a

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved

U.S. Const, art. II, § 1, cl. 2 and 3 provides:

."Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as

the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number

of Electors, equal to the whole Number of

Senators and Representatives to which the

State may be entitled in the Congress; but no

Senator or Representative, or person holding

an Office of Trust or Profit under the United

States shall be appointed an Elector.

The Congress may determine the Time of

chusing the Electors, and the Day on which

they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be

the same throughout the United States."

U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 3 provides:

No person shall be a Senator or

Representative in Congress, or elector of

President and Vice President, or hold any

office, civil or military, under the United

States, or under any State, who, having

previously taken an oath, as a member of

Congress, or as an officer of the United States,

or as a member of any State legislature, or as

an executive or judicial officer of any State, to

support the Constitution of the United States,

shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion

against the same, or given aid or comfort to

the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a

vote of two-thirds of each House, remove

such disability.

13a

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 32-620 (3)(b) Provides:

32-620 (3)(b) President and Vice President

Candidates

A petition signed by not less than two thousand

five hundred registered voters. Such petitions

shall conform to the requirements of sections

32-620.01 and 32-628 and shall be filed with the

Secretary of State by August 1 in the year of the

presidential general election.