William Quinn v. Secretary of State, State of Georgia

── William Quinn v. Secretary of State, State of Georgia ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: May 11, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-11843 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 05/11/2026 Page: 1 of 12 FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11843 ____________________ WILLIAM T. QUINN, DAVID CROSS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE STATE OF GEORGIA, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:24-cv-04364-SCJ ____________________ Before BRANCH, GRANT, and HULL, Circuit Judges. BRANCH, Circuit Judge: William T. Quinn and David Cross, two Georgia voters, sued the Georgia Secretary of State (“Secretary”), alleging that the state was violating federal voter list maintenance requirements USCA11 Case: 25-11843 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 05/11/2026 Page: 2 of 12 2 Opinion of the Court 25-11843 under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, 52 U.S.C. § 20501 et seq. (“NVRA”), as well as related Georgia state laws. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit for lack of Article III standing because their injuries were speculative and not particularized. On appeal, the plaintiffs contend that the district court erred because their discovery of allegedly improperly maintained state voter rolls “shook their faith in the electoral process” and “undermined [their] confidence” in Georgia’s electoral process. The plaintiffs argue that their shaken confidence is particularized—they personally discovered the alleged discrepancies, after all—and non-speculative because their confidence “is actually and presently undermined.” After careful review and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the dismissal because Quinn and Cross do not possess the particularized injury-in-fact that our standing doctrine requires. I. Background Quinn and Cross were concerned about the accuracy of Georgia’s list of eligible voters and the related potential for ineligible voters to vote. 1 They investigated this concern for 1 In reviewing the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we accept as true all facts set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint. See Lord Abbett Mun. Income Fund, Inc. v. Tyson, 671 F.3d 1203, 1206 (11th Cir. 2012). We relay the facts as stated in the complaint. Notably, the plaintiffs do not allege that the Secretary improperly removed any voters from the list of eligible voters. Rather, the plaintiffs assert that the Secretary has left on the list voters who may have moved and thus are likely ineligible to vote. USCA11 Case: 25-11843 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 05/11/2026 Page: 3 of 12 25-11843 Opinion of the Court 3 themselves. First, they obtained a list of voter registrations from the Secretary on June 30, 2024. They then compared the names and addresses from that list to the United States Postal Service (USPS) National Change of Address database “to determine whether or not [the voter] still resided at their address of registration.” Their anal