A federal judge has declined to take up the Philly DA’s lawsuit against Elon Musk, sending it back to a city court

A federal judge has declined to accept oversight of the lawsuit filed against Elon Musk by Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, the latest chapter in the legal bout unfolding between Krasner and Musk ahead of Election Day.

The decision, issued Friday afternoon by U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, rejected a request by Musk’s lawyers to have the case proceed through the federal system — and sends the matter back to Philadelphia’s Common Pleas Court, where Krasner had initially filed a complaint earlier this week.

Still, Musk’s unsuccessful gamble paid off at least in part, as Common Pleas Court Judge Angelo Foglietta said a hearing in the case would not take place until Monday morning — the day before the presidential election. Krasner’s suit seeks to stop Musk from giving away money to registered voters in Pennsylvania as that contest draws to an end. Now, even if the suit succeeds, the ruling will only prevent Musk from doling out awards in Pennsylvania over the last 36 hours before the polls close.

It was not clear Friday if Musk might ever show up inside a Philadelphia courtroom. After Pappert rejected the request to oversee the case, Musk’s attorneys filed a motion asking Foglietta to waive a requirement that the tech billionaire attend future hearings. They called Krasner’s suit “politically motivated” and said that “Musk, a nonresident of Pennsylvania, is subject to an incredible number of time commitments that involve careful planning and preclude last-minute changes in the days leading up to a major federal presidential election.”

It was not immediately clear how Foglietta might rule on that issue.

Krasner, a Democrat, sued Musk and his America PAC earlier this week, saying the PAC’s daily $1 million awards to registered voters in battleground states — including Pennsylvania — violated the state’s lottery and consumer protection laws.

Musk, who has become a top surrogate for Republican nominee Donald Trump, has denied that, casting his contest as a way to drive up GOP voter registration numbers in states that might decide the election.

Although election law experts and the Justice Department have warned that Musk’s giveaways appear to violate federal laws banning monetary inducements to vote, Krasner’s suit took a slightly different approach. His lawyers said the contest constituted a lottery, which under Pennsylvania law can only be run by the state and for the benefit of seniors who live there.

Krasner’s suit also said America PAC was violating Pennsylvania’s consumer protection laws, including by failing to publish detailed rules or odds of winning, and declining to say or demonstrate how participants’ personal information was being protected.

Musk’s attorneys, led by Matthew Haverstick, sought to have the case reclassified as a federal matter, arguing that because it concerned a presidential election, it should not be handled by a state judge.

But Krasner’s attorneys disagreed, saying in court documents: “The Complaint concerns only Pennsylvania public nuisance and lottery law, and Pennsylvania [consumer protection] law.”

Pappert evidently agreed.

In a brief opinion accompanying his decision, the judge said, in essence, that although Krasner’s suit is intersecting with a looming federal election, the laws he is seeking to employ against Musk and his PAC are Pennsylvania statutes — making it a matter for a local court to decide.

John Summers, one of Krasner’s lawyers, said Musk’s attempt to reclassify the case as a federal one was a delay tactic, calling it a “stunt” and a way to “run the clock until election day” in order to continue handing out cash prizes.

“Justice delayed in stopping illegal activity that harms Philadelphians and undermines their free, fair, and final elections is justice denied,” Summers wrote in court documents.

With the issues of timing and jurisdiction now seemingly settled, the matter will now be Foglietta’s to evaluate.