There is a thread down below from American Thinker. The actual article had a link or two, and I did some reading.
My understanding is that there is precedent. In 1974 the SCOTUS decided that all voters cannot disenfranchised by the presence of fraudulent votes; in that case the entire precinct is nullified.
Donohue v. Board of Elections of State of NY was in 1976, a Federal District court not the SCOTUS and the plaintiffs (Voters not candidate) stated that
they were not sure the fraud would have overturned the election
Pay attention to the opinion, again this is not the SCOTUS, in fact very little exists of SCOTUS opinions on the matter and certainly not in 1974, Reynolds v. Sims comes close though, however, the opinion of Donohue creates interesting openings for the Trump campaign:
Where a state or municipal agency is alleged to have deprived individuals of equal protection of the laws, it may be the subject of the federal court's exercise of equitable powers… The City and State Boards of Elections are not immune and may lawfully be enjoined from debasing or diluting the votes of qualified citizens
...and...
As the Supreme Court said in Reynolds v. Sims, supra, where political districting in Alabama was challenged under the fourteenth amendment: [T]he right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.”
...and...
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the argument that administrative infirmities in an election, in the absence of "willful or knowing" dilution of ballots, create a remedy in federal courts.
It is necessary… to plead and prove specific acts of misconduct, including the time, place and circumstances of the alleged deprivation of the right to vote.
Purposeful deprivation of the right to vote will not be assumed merely because there is evidence that election officials acted incompetently or negligently.
The fraud or other unlawful behavior must be committed by persons acting under color of state law, or by private persons acting jointly with state officials.
The party seeking a new election must establish that the fraud or other unlawful behavior changed the outcome of the election. In the absence of proof of a causal relationship between the unlawful conduct and the result of the election, injunctive relief must be denied.
...and...
Protecting the integrity of elections particularly Presidential contests is essential to a free and democratic society. It is difficult to imagine a more damaging blow to public confidence in the electoral process than the election of a President whose margin of victory was provided by fraudulent registration or voting, ballot-stuffing or other illegal means. Indeed, entirely foreclosing injunctive relief in the federal courts would invite attempts to influence national elections by illegal means, particularly in those states where no statutory procedures are available for contesting general elections.
...and...
Finally, federal courts in the past have not hesitated to take jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the validity of local elections and, where necessary, order new elections.
The fact that a national election might require judicial intervention, concomitantly implicating the interests of the entire nation, if anything, militates in favor of interpreting the equity jurisdiction of the federal courts to include challenges to Presidential elections.