U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2025

Sarah E. Thompson v. Governor of the State of Georgia

Sarah E. Thompson v. Governor of the State of Georgia
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided March 3, 2025

Sarah E. Thompson v. Governor of the State of Georgia

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-13689 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 03/03/2025 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-13689 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ SARAH E. THOMPSON, EDWARD T. METZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA, GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE, BULLOCH COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, CHAIRWOMEN, BULLOCH COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JIM BENTON, in his official capacity as member of the Bulloch County Board of Elections, et al., USCA11 Case: 24-13689 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 03/03/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 24-13689 Defendants-Appellees.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:24-cv-04987-MHC ____________________ Before JILL PRYOR, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Sarah E. Thompson and Edward T. Metz, plaintiffs below, appeal from the district court’s denial of their construed motion for a temporary restraining order that sought to stop the then-upcom- ing November 5, 2024, election. Georgia’s Governor and Secretary of State, Brian Kemp and Brad Raffensperger, respectively, filed a motion to dismiss this appeal.

We agree that this appeal is now moot. Georgia has con- ducted, counted, and certified the vote, meaning we can no longer grant meaningful relief as to the order the plaintiffs appealed. See Wood v. Raffensperger, 981 F.3d 1307, 1316-17 (11th Cir. 2020); Zinni v. ER Solutions, Inc., 692 F.3d 1162, 1166 (11th Cir. 2012). And no exception to the mootness doctrine applies. See Brooks v. Ga. State Bd. of Elections, 59 F.3d 1114, 1120 21 (11th Cir. 1995); Wood, 981 F.3d at 1317-18. We thus lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See Christian Coal. Of Fla., Inc. v. United States, 662 F.3d 1182, 1189 (11th Cir. 2011).

USCA11 Case: 24-13689 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 03/03/2025 Page: 3 of 3

24-13689 Opinion of the Court 3 Accordingly, Kemp and Raffensperger’s motion is GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED. All other pending mo- tions are DENIED as moot.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.