Judge returns challenge to Elon Musk’s giveaways to state court, siding with Philadelphia DA 

A judge on Friday rejected Elon Musk’s attempt to move to federal court a lawsuit challenging his $1 million daily giveaways to registered voters in swing states. 

Musk’s attorneys have accused Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner (D) of attempting to rush a court-ordered stop to the giveaways. By trying to move courts, Musk halted a Thursday state court hearing at which his attendance was required. 

"The District Attorney wants this litigation to be a rushed stage play, and the attendant spectacle and attention that go with it. But this lawsuit belongs in federal court, where it can be decided soberly and in a deliberate fashion,” Musk’s attorneys wrote in court filings. 

U.S. District Judge Gerald Pappert’s ruling remands the lawsuit back to state court, siding with the district attorney and allowing the hearing to proceed. 

America PAC launched the sweepstakes in late October. The giveaways are restricted to registered voters in seven swing states, including Pennsylvania, who have signed the PAC’s petition supporting free speech and the right to bear arms. 

The Philadelphia district attorney sued the billionaire and his pro-Trump super PAC on Monday, urging the court to immediately halt the sweepstakes. Krasner alleged that America PAC’s daily $1 million giveaways are an “illegal lottery” under Pennsylvania state law. 

Musk requested that the case be moved to federal court on Wednesday night, arguing that it has “little to do with state-law claims of nuisance and consumer protection,” which Krasner raised in his initial complaint. 

“Viewed properly, the Notice of Removal is a stunt to obtain a procedural advantage to avoid a ruling on the Preliminary Injunction and run the clock until election day,” Krasner’s office pushed back. 

Musk’s attorneys insisted the case can be moved to federal court because the dispute is “inextricably intertwined” with questions of federal law related to the upcoming presidential election. Alternatively, Musk’s lawyers said the case qualified under diversity jurisdiction, referring to the federal courts’ ability to hear cases if the defendants and plaintiffs are from different states and the amount in controversy is over $75,000. 

The judge rejected both arguments. He found no question of federal law needed to be decided to resolve the district attorney’s lawsuit. 

“Federal question jurisdiction does not turn on a plaintiff’s motivations in filing suit; it turns on whether the legal issues arising from the claims originate in federal or state law,” Pappert wrote. 

Pappert was appointed the bench by former President Obama and previously served as Pennsylvania’s Republican attorney general. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) reportedly warned the super PAC that its giveaways could violate a federal law against paying people to register to vote. However, it has continued to hand out the $1 million checks and insists the amount is instead for the person to serve as a PAC spokesperson. Fourteen swing state residents have received checks so far. 

Musk, who endorsed Trump in July, has taken on a particularly active role in the former president’s campaign. His super PAC has been central to the campaign’s ground game in swing states, and Musk himself has held a series of events in Pennsylvania in the final weeks of the race.