PHILADELPHIA — Elon Musk’s legal team filed court papers that delayed a potential ruling on a lawsuit over his super PAC’s $1 million lottery-style giveaways.

Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner filed a lawsuit over the contest Monday in state court, but late Wednesday, lawyers for Musk and his America PAC filed papers in federal court to move the matter there, arguing that federal law — not state law — was central to the case.

John Summers, a lawyer representing Krasner, described the development as “cowardly, as well as irresponsible,” during a brief hearing in state court Thursday morning.

Matthew Haverstick, a lawyer representing Musk and the super PAC, defended the substantive merits of their actions. He said their notice of removal was properly filed.

The federal court filing automatically blocked any immediate action in state court, where Judge Angelo Foglietta had already scheduled Thursday’s hearing. Foglietta went ahead with the hearing but acknowledged that the federal filing had stripped him of jurisdiction to hear arguments.

As a result, Musk’s super PAC has been free to continue running the daily contest, including announcing a winner early Thursday morning.

Thursday afternoon, Krasner’s attorneys filed an emergency motion in federal court to send the case back to state court, arguing that the suit makes claims only under Pennsylvania law, not federal law.

Musk is trying to “run the clock until election day” and avoid a ruling, they wrote.

U.S. District Judge Jerry Pappert, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, ordered Musk’s attorneys to file a response by 10 a.m. ET Friday.

Krasner has sought to move quickly in the case, arguing that Musk and his super PAC are running an illegal lottery that violates state law, but the end of the contest is fast approaching, with the final $1 million daily winner scheduled for Tuesday.

America PAC says it has given $1 million prizes to 13 people in the past two weeks. To be eligible to win, people must be registered voters in one of seven battleground states and sign a petition pledging support for the First and Second amendments.

Summers said he planned to argue in federal court to have the case returned to state court.

“We will proceed to federal court, and we will address the issues there and seek to have the matter remanded back to the state court,” he told reporters outside the state courtroom Thursday. He said it’s a case “that involves state law issues.”

Summers noted that Musk didn’t appear in person for the hearing.

“This morning, DA Krasner was here to testify. Elon Musk didn’t show,” he said.

Musk’s private jet was in Austin, Texas, as of early Thursday morning, according to the Elon Jet account on Bluesky which publishes aggregated flight data.

During Thursday’s brief hearing, Summers highlighted Musk’s retweeting of an X post calling Foglietta a “leftist judge,” which the judge said he dismissed as “irrelevant.”

Foglietta said he wasn’t going to get into any implications of Musk’s failure to appear in person for the hearing unless and until a federal judge returned the case to state court. Musk’s lawyers did attend the hearing.

Haverstick waved away his client’s absence, saying that Musk is a busy man who can’t “materialize” on 12 hours’ notice and that he was added as a defendant in the case only as a “publicity stunt.”

Summers pushed back on the idea that Musk was too busy to appear, citing Musk’s wealth, resources and ownership of SpaceX — which prompted Foglietta to interrupt.

“He’s not going to take a rocket ship and land on the building,” the judge said. “Let’s be serious.”

“If anyone could land a rocket ship in Philadelphia, it’s Elon Musk,” Summers replied.

Summers also took issue with the idea that the DA sued Musk as a publicity stunt, saying nothing in the matter was a publicity stunt other than Musk’s “weird” rallies.

Summers also questioned whether America PAC is paying lottery winners, saying there’s no sign of the payouts on the super PAC’s expenditure reports. The super PAC has said on X that it has disbursed money at least to the initial winners.

Haverstick declined to respond to most of Summers’ comments during the hearing, saying that Summers was speaking about matters that weren’t at issue.

Krasner’s suit, by focusing on the regulation of lotteries in Pennsylvania, sidestepped questions about whether the $1 million giveaway violates laws against buying votes or paying people to register to vote. The U.S. Justice Department and various legal experts had warned that Musk’s contest might violate those election laws.

David Ingram reported from San Francisco and Daniel Barnes reported from Philadelphia.