That's not the way lawyers use the term "on the merits". See, e.g., [0].
> The distinction between decisions that rest on the merits rather than on procedural grounds is important because a decision on the merits is considered final and is thus bound by res judicata... Decisions that do not rest on the merits, however, are not bound by res judicata because the claims were not properly heard. Thus, these claims may be brought forth in a subsequent case, excluding dismissals due to a failure to state a claim.
In addition, from Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie [0]:
> The dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is a "judgment on the merits." See Angel v. Bullington, 330 U. S. 183, 330 U. S. 190 (1947); Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678 (1946).
Your comment appears to imply otherwise. Did I misread it?
> conflating "on the merits" with determining facts by considering evidence.
Do you mind elaborating on the difference?
My comment wasn't very clear. Sorry about that. Usually we think of a judgment "on the merits" as one that occurs after considering both the law and facts of a case.
> Do you mind elaborating on the difference?
In the case of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the judge in theory assumes that the facts alleged in the complaint are all true. If he dismisses the case, it is because as a matter of law the plaintiff cannot win. In such a case it is incorrect to say that the evidence was found to be lacking because the evidence was never considered.
I feel like now the disputable phrase is "considering the evidence". Is the judge not considering the evidence when deciding that the presented facts/evidence are insufficient to support the complaint, even when assumed to be true? How would such a ruling differ from a hypothetical one where the case goes to trial and the defense does literally nothing? Is the evidence considered in the latter case but not the former?
I'm fully aware of how lawyers use the term, but that's immaterial to the import being given to the term in this discussion. To the extent that whether a case was decided “on the merits” is being used as a proxy for the argument that the probative value of the evidence actually in the Trump campaign’s hands in claims of election fraud has not been evaluated, it is only valid if you consider any decision (even of “procedural” rather than “on the merits” in traditional legal categorization) where, in fact, that evidence was weighed by a standard at least as favorable as it would be at trial and nevertheless found wanting.
Edit: I think we're in agreement that "on the merits" here is being conflated with a trial that considers the probative value of evidence. They are not the same thing.
This is false on several levels. One, several cases went through trial to a verdict. Second, of those that did not, several were thrown out on grounds that while perhaps “procedural”, include as part of their standards review of the actual and proferred evidence in the light most favorable to the party to be ruled against.
For instance, where cases were dismissed for “failure to state a claim”, this was not usually a finding that the Trump (or allied) party failed to enumerate the legal elements of an offense, but that they failed at the step beyond that which is required, to enumerate specific more detailed facts that actually would satisfy each of those elements, and proffer evidence which would make a prima facie case for each required point. (That is, which would suffice to prove the case in the absence of any counterevidence from the other side.) When cases are, as many of the Trump & allied cases were, thrown out for this reason, the court is making a finding on the merits: it is finding that the party being ruled against would lose on the merits if the case went to trial, all the evidence the moving party has offered were accepted at face value, and the other party just chose not to present anything at all to counter it.
(Now, its true that in many cases the same lawsuits dismissed on this grounds were also dismissed on a other grounds – standing and laches, particularly – but it is misleading to say that the merits of the claims and the value of the evidence the plaintiff’s had was not considered.)