America’s highest court refused to hear the former president’s last effort to reverse the outcome of the presidential race.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Donald Trump’s final attempt to invalidate results from the Wisconsin leg of the November election.

Several justices that refused to sign their names declared the court would not hear President Trump’s concerns about the integrity of the electoral process in the Badger State.

The former president had accused the Wisconsin Elections Commission of unconstitutionally extending absentee voting due to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Virus.

He also maintained Wisconsin election officials had violated state law through setting up “unauthorized, illegal” absentee voting drop boxes and permitting poll workers to correct absentee ballot witness certificates.

Litigation continued even though previous Vice President Mike Pence had already certified the election results and Joe Biden seized the Oval Office.

President Trump believes the lawsuit was important to continue because it might help prevent history from repeating again in the future.

“The narrow window in which legal disputes may be resolved following a presidential election weighs heavily in favor of applying the ‘capable of repetition’ doctrine to resolve issues capable of reoccurring,” President Trump’s legal team said in court documents obtained by Fox News. “Otherwise, non-legislative state actors may be emboldened in future presidential elections to make even more last-minute changes to state election laws contrary to the electors clause.”

The Biden administration is widely expected to keep pushing for new rules that prevent justices from spending the rest of their working lives serving the Supreme Court.

House Democrats previously introduced a bill to limit Supreme Court justice tenures to just 18 years and prevent the incumbent president from nominating more than two justices each four-year term.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) claimed the changes would help end partisan fighting over which side of the aisle should replace an outgoing judge.

“It would save the country a lot of agony and help lower the temperature over fights for the court that go to the fault lines of cultural issues and is one of the primary things tearing at our social fabric,” he said according to Reuters.

Many Supreme Court justices serve an average of more than 25 years due to rising life expectancies. Some legal academics would rather see a higher turnover of justices, according to Reuters.

Khanna’s solution is to declare justices “senior” after they finish an 18-year term and allow them to continue working in lower courts.

“That is perfectly consistent with their judicial independence and having a lifetime salary and a lifetime appointment,” he said.