A federal judge in Pennsylvania has sent back to state court a lawsuit against Elon Musk and his political action committee (PAC) regarding a controversial $1 million daily lottery for registered voters. The ruling came on Friday, following Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner’s request to halt the prize giveaways ahead of the upcoming presidential election.
Krasner’s office claims that Musk and his America PAC are running an illegal lottery designed to sway voters in the election between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. They allege that the lottery violates state consumer protection laws and is aimed at influencing the electoral process.
The case was initially filed in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, but Musk’s team moved it to federal court, claiming jurisdiction due to its connection with the presidential election. However, U.S. District Judge Gerald Pappert ruled that the lawsuit should be handled in state court, stating that the legal issues raised are rooted in state law, not federal law. “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.
In response to the ruling, Krasner’s office noted that the judge’s decision reaffirmed their position that Musk’s attempt to shift the case to federal court was unlawful. The District Attorney is seeking a hearing on Monday to address his request for an injunction against the lottery.
Musk announced the lottery on October 19, stating that the America PAC would randomly award $1 million daily until Election Day to registered voters in seven swing states, including Pennsylvania, who signed a petition supporting the U.S. Constitution. The first winners of the lottery were reportedly from Pennsylvania.
Following Krasner’s lawsuit, Musk was ordered to appear for an emergency hearing in the state court, but his legal team had already filed to move the case to federal jurisdiction. After Musk did not attend the scheduled hearing, Judge Angelo Foglietta indicated that the case could not proceed in state court due to its removal to federal jurisdiction.
Musk’s attorney, Matthew Haverstick, subsequently filed a motion to quash the order requiring Musk’s appearance, arguing that the request was intended to “harass and oppress” Musk during a critical election period. Haverstick contended that the District Attorney’s actions were an unconstitutional attempt to limit Musk’s First Amendment rights.