The Brunson case is a series of lawsuits filed by brothers Raland and Loy Brunson that asked federal courts to remove members of Congress, the President, and the Vice President from office for certifying the 2020 presidential election without first investigating allegations of fraud and foreign interference. The Supreme Court declined to hear the petitions, and lower court dismissals stand.1Supreme Court of the United States. Docket No. 22-380
Who Brought the Case and Against Whom
Raland and Loy Brunson filed as private citizens. Their suits named a large group of federal officials who participated in the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021, treating those officials collectively based on their roles in certifying the electoral count.1Supreme Court of the United States. Docket No. 22-380 The best-known filing is Brunson v. Adams.
The Oath of Office Argument
The plaintiffs built their claim on Article VI of the Constitution, which requires federal officials to swear an oath to support the Constitution.2Constitution Annotated. Article VI, Clause 3 They argued the defendants broke that oath by voting to certify the election without pausing to investigate allegations of foreign interference and domestic fraud, and that the remedy was judicial removal from office along with disqualification from future office.
The Constitution does not work that way. Removal of the President, Vice President, and civil officers happens through impeachment and conviction for specific misconduct, not through a civil suit brought by a private plaintiff.3Constitution Annotated. Article II, Section 4 Disqualification from holding future office is likewise a judgment attached to impeachment proceedings.4Constitution Annotated. Article I, Section 3, Clause 7
Why the Courts Refused to Hear It
Federal courts dismissed the actions on standing. Article III limits courts to actual cases and controversies, and a plaintiff must show three things:5Constitution Annotated. Article III Standing – Constitutional Minimums
- A concrete and specific injury that is actual or imminent
- A clear link between that injury and the defendant’s conduct
- A likelihood that a court can remedy the injury
A complaint that the government failed to follow the law, shared by every citizen equally, is treated as a generalized grievance and does not satisfy the injury requirement.6Constitution Annotated. Generalized Grievances That was the wall the Brunson complaints hit first.
Two other doctrines cut against the suits as well. Sovereign immunity blocks lawsuits against the federal government and its officials unless Congress has consented.7Constitution Annotated. Sovereign Immunity And the Speech or Debate Clause shields members of Congress from litigation over their legislative acts, which includes debating and voting on election certification.8Constitution Annotated. Speech or Debate Clause – Legislative Acts
Timeline of the Supreme Court Denials
The plaintiffs pursued the case at the Supreme Court through petitions for a writ of certiorari after lower courts dismissed their claims.
- January 9, 2023 — The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Brunson v. Adams, leaving the lower court dismissals in place.1Supreme Court of the United States. Docket No. 22-380
- February 21, 2023 — The Court denied the plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing.1Supreme Court of the United States. Docket No. 22-380
- June 26, 2023 — The Court denied certiorari on a second petition raising the same challenge.9Supreme Court of the United States. Docket No. 22-1028
None of the denials came with oral argument or a written opinion addressing the underlying allegations. A denial of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits; it means the Court chose not to review the lower court decisions, which then remain the last word in the case.