The Supreme Court said Monday it would not hear a 2020 election lawsuit, widely panned as frivolous, which sought to remove President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris from office.
The lawsuit names former Vice President Mike Pence, Biden, Harris, and hundreds of lawmakers as defendants who allegedly violated their oaths of office by refusing to investigate allegations of fraud in the 2020 election before accepting the electoral vote on Jan. 6, 2021, which allowed Biden and Harris to become “fraudulently” elected, according to court records.
The justices’ private conference was held Friday in which they decided whether or not to hear cases sent to the court. When they returned for Monday orders, the case in question did not have the four of nine votes necessary for the justices to move it forward.
TRUMP’S ACTIONS AROUND 2020 ELECTION NOT PROTECTED BY ‘ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY,’ JUDGE RULES
Raland Brunson, a Utah-based man who filed the suit, acknowledged on Monday that the “petition was denied” in a post to Facebook. “We will now make our next move. A petition for reconsideration. Hang in there everyone.”
Brunson said Thursday that he was prepared for a denial and signaled his plan to keep fighting without elaborating on his legal strategy. “Now, don’t think for a second that my brothers and I are not prepared for a denial. We’ve got plenty of chess pieces still at play and we still have our queen,” Brunson wrote.
The case was dismissed in lower courts for various reasons, including a lack of jurisdiction. Additionally, the U.S. solicitor general decided last year to waive the government’s right to respond to the matter, which can serve as a signal that the justices would likewise express disinterest in the case.
“This was a frivolous lawsuit that never came within a light year of actually getting the court’s attention,” said Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law who also provides Supreme Court analysis for CNN.
Vladeck also said the messaging and media behind Brunson’s case were fueled by inaccuracies about the court’s role in his case.
For example, former Arkansas Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee wrote in a December Substack post that the justices “agreed to a hearing” in the case. In actuality, the justices were only deciding if the case would be granted for a hearing.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“The only reason why it was on anyone’s radar is because former Gov. Huckabee claimed that there was some deep substantive significance in the fact that the justices were considering it at their January 6 conference,” Vladeck added.
Patriots rallying outside the Supreme Court advocating for the Brunson case.#BrunsonvAdams #BRUNSONBROTHERS #WashingtonDC pic.twitter.com/PX3uQk7vMv
— Jen doesnt hate your Grandma (@Jinkies78) January 6, 2023
On Friday, which marked the second anniversary of the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol fueled by believers of former President Donald Trump’s fraud claims, several protesters appeared outside the court in hopes that the justices would grant the case, according to Twitter posts from that day.
Several people were standing behind a banner that read: “One nation under God with liberty & justice for all.”
