On November 20, the district court issued a written opinion and order that explained its denial. It first ruled that Wood lacked standing because he had alleged only generalized grievances, instead of injuries that affected him in a personal and individual way. It next explained that, even if Wood had standing, the doctrine of laches prevented him from challenging the settlement agreement now: he could have sued eight months earlier, yet he waited until two weeks after the election. Finally, it explained why Wood would not be entitled to a temporary restraining order even if the district court could reach the merits of his claims. On the same day, Secretary Raffensperger certified the results of the general election and Governor Kemp certified a slate of presidential electors.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“We are required to examine our jurisdiction sua sponte, and we review jurisdictional issues de novo.” United States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309, 1311 (11th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
This appeal turns on one of the most fundamental principles of the federal courts: our limited jurisdiction. Federal courts are not “constituted as free-wheeling enforcers of the Constitution and laws.” Initiative & Referendum Inst. v. Walker, 450 F.3d 1082, 1087 (10th Cir. 2006) (en banc). As the Supreme Court “ha[s] often explained,” we are instead “courts of limited jurisdiction.” Home Depot
8
