Appeals court on Friday denied the Trump campaign's effort to revive the federal lawsuit challenging the election results in Pennsylvania ruling the claims have no merit. The judges also rejecting the president's motion to one do Pennsylvania's certification of oats. The state on Tuesday certified its general election results in Pennsylvania, formally awarding President elect Joe Biden 20 electoral votes. There are those now who think that this rejection, But the federal appeals court will help the Trump campaign effort to get a case before the U. S. Supreme Court for it to decide the Supreme Court the night before Thanksgiving handed down a favorable ruling for many of the supporters of the president when they said the governor of New York's covert restrictions on some Catholic churches and synagogues Should be tossed out. So what does it mean for the future of the fight by the President's campaign, Mark Larsen from AM 7 60 talked to CBS News correspondent in Washington. Major Garrett about these cases, the third circuit in the most recent decision that came down today out of Pennsylvania case set. You need facts and law to be in dispute and we have neither. There's no evidence. There are no facts there. No presentations. There are just accusations and happily because court should not jump in when there are no facts and no relevant allegations and no dispute. About the underlying walk, no courts to jump in and do that They're not and they're not going to and nothing is going to get the Supreme Court that's reversible. And everyone says Oh, my gosh. Supreme Court said that Religious organizations are protected from certain covert restrictions. Of course they are in the First Amendment. There's a higher standard that's been part of U S law. The very beginning it's in the bill of rights. It's the First Amendment. Yes, there has to be a higher standard and a higher standard has been in law for a long time. It's not a departure. It's a verification, so they're separate things. Oh my gosh. The Supreme Court protected religious organizations and how they observed from covert restrictions. Yes, yes, There's a higher standard, right. Let's talk about that for a second. That was a big deal. Amy Cockney Barrett's first big swing vote opportunity there, and this puts limits on New York on Cuomo. When it came to, he was imposing attendance limits, like kind of like we have here in many cases with his own version of the color codes. 10 people in red Zones 25. People in orange zones seem to be disproportionately getting to the Catholics and the Orthodox Jewish congregations and so forth. So so this is a is a big deal. That sort of happened just over the holiday here in the court. Said. What the court has always said, which is Because it's in the First Amendment because it's in the bill of rights because it's in the Constitution. There's a higher standard that must be met. If you're going to restrict this activity. You better have a compelling state reason to do that. Mm. And if people have the volition to decide which they do, And you have to let them operate within the freedoms outlined in the Constitution that to meet is that doesn't strike me is radical and it doesn't strike me as something is his dangerous now did the chief justice when it was an eight member Supreme Court before him. He called me Barrett was nominated confirmed. Keep it for four. Yes, he did. So the chief justice comes down differently. But this didn't seem to me to be a radical departure that would should make us all breathless are nervous about what the court's going to do. And for the same reason, if any of these cases which I don't ever imagine they will get Supreme Court get there. The Supreme Court's not going to say you know what What doesn't matter, and we're going to keep President Trump in office, and it's not going to do that's not gonna happen. There's nothing that is meticulously legitimate about the assertions made so far and they've had plenty of time to find something and they found nothing. And that's the way it is. Major