Page:King v. Whitmer (20-13134) (2020) Opinion and Order.pdf/13

 where it alleged that the problems that plagued the election “are chronic and will continue absent injunctive relief”).

For these reasons, the Court concludes that the Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants.
 * B. Mootness

This case represents well the phrase: “this ship has sailed.” The time has passed to provide most of the relief Plaintiffs request in their Amended Complaint; the remaining relief is beyond the power of any court. For those reasons, this matter is moot.

“‘Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies.’” ''Kentucky v. U.S. ex rel. Hagel, 759 F.3d 588, 595 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp.'', 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990)). A case may become moot “when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 396, 410 (1980) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Stated differently, a case is moot where the court lacks “the ability to give meaningful relief[.]” Sullivan v. Benningfield, 920 F.3d 401, 410 (6th Cir. 2019). This lawsuit was moot well before it was filed on November 25.

In their prayer for relief, Plaintiffs ask the Court to: (a) order Defendants to decertify the results of the election; (b) enjoin Secretary Benson and Governor