The Brunson v. Adams lawsuit claims that lawmakers violated their oaths of office by allegedly failing to investigate a foreign intervention in the 2020 presidential race which allegedly rigged the election against Trump.
The case is based on the claim that the defendants—who include Congress members, Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and former Vice President Mike Pence—voted to certify the 2020 presidential election after receiving a valid request from 154 members of Congress to investigate unfounded claims of electoral fraud in six states.
The Supreme Court declined to consider the lawsuit on January 9, but the plaintiff, Raland Brunson, filed an appeal on January 23. Now, the court has to reconsider whether or not to hear the case, according to an update on the SCOTUS’ website that read that the lawsuit was “distributed for conference” on Friday.
“The petition was denied. We will now make our next move,” Brunson wrote on Facebook after the court declined the case on January 9, Zach Schonfeld of The Hill reported last month. “A petition for reconsideration. Hang in their everyone,” Brunson wrote on Facebook following the decision.”
Brunson’s lawsuit claims that election fraud made his vote for Trump in 2020 invalid when he cast his ballot in Utah. He raised the case in lower courts which dismissed it for the lack of jurisdiction.
The suit named all 387 members of Congress who voted to certify Biden’s electoral votes and called for them all to be removed from their roles—along with Biden and Harris—and be prohibited from ever running for office again. Brunson also asked for over $2 billion tax-free in damages, according to The Hill.
In the appeal filed on January 23, Brunson argued that the court should grant a rehearing because the case “represents a very powerful domestic covert operation that is so benign that it cannot been seen on how it has breached our national security, and how it is affecting the national security of both Canada and Mexico, and how it has circulated fears that we might soon see the destruction of property along with a large volume of bloodshed in our own streets.”
“This is the right call and predicted. The Supreme Court is not the arbiter of how a member does his or her job. This is a nonjusticiable issue. Imagine if a future Dem sought removal of members for ‘failing to investigate’ Trump. This would open the door to further weaponizing,” she wrote on Twitter at the time.
Newsweek reached out to the public information office at the U.S. Supreme Court for comment.