Brunson v. Adams was a 2021 federal lawsuit filed by Utah resident Raland J. Brunson that asked the courts to remove 385 members of Congress, President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and former Vice President Mike Pence from office for certifying the 2020 electoral vote without investigating fraud allegations. Every court that reviewed it dismissed it, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case on January 9, 2023. The lawsuit ran into several independent legal barriers, any one of which was fatal, and it became widely known mainly because viral social media posts described it as something it was not.
Who Filed It and Who Was Sued
Raland Brunson represented himself, with help from his brothers Loy and Deron Brunson. Loy filed a nearly identical suit separately. The complaint named 388 defendants in total: 385 members of Congress from both parties who voted to certify the 2020 electoral results, along with Biden, Harris, and Pence.1Supreme Court of the United States. Brunson v. Adams Petition for Writ of Certiorari Representative Alma S. Adams was listed first among the congressional defendants, which is why the caption reads “Brunson v. Adams.”2Justia Law. Brunson v. Adams, No. 22-4007 (10th Cir. 2022)
What the Lawsuit Argued
Brunson’s theory was that every member of Congress who voted to certify the 2020 results had violated their oath of office. He argued that the Constitution required these officials to investigate fraud allegations before certifying, and that their failure to do so amounted to aiding enemies of the Constitution. The complaint did not attempt to prove that fraud had actually occurred. The alleged violation was the refusal to investigate.
The remedies were sweeping. Brunson asked the court to permanently remove all 388 defendants from office, invalidate the 2020 election, and award him $2 billion in damages. A single federal district judge, ruling for one individual plaintiff, was being asked to unseat a sitting president, vice president, and most of Congress over a procedural vote.
Why the Case Couldn’t Survive in Court
Brunson lost on threshold questions rather than on the underlying facts. Federal courts don’t reach the merits of a lawsuit when the plaintiff can’t clear certain basic requirements, and this case failed several of them at once.
No Standing to Sue
Article III of the Constitution allows federal courts to hear cases only when the plaintiff has suffered a concrete, personal injury that the court can actually redress. The plaintiff must show an actual injury, trace it to the defendant’s conduct, and demonstrate that a court ruling could fix it.3Legal Information Institute. Standing Requirement – Overview
Brunson never got past the first element. His claimed injury, that members of Congress had voted to certify without investigating fraud, was one that every American voter shared equally. Courts have long held that this kind of generalized grievance does not support individual standing. The district court found that his claims were “generalized claims of legislative nonfeasance arising out of the counting of electors’ votes” and dismissed on that basis.4GovInfo. Brunson v. Adams District Court Report and Recommendation
The Defendants Were Immune
Even if standing had existed, the defendants were shielded. The Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause protects members of Congress from being sued over anything they do as part of their legislative duties, and voting on the floor is the paradigmatic legislative act. The protection covers floor votes, speeches, committee reports, and other activities integral to the legislative process.5Legal Information Institute. Speech and Debate Privilege Certifying electoral votes is a congressional proceeding prescribed by the Constitution, so the 385 congressional defendants could not be sued for how they voted.
Biden, Harris, and Pence were protected by sovereign immunity, the long-standing principle that federal officials acting in their official capacity cannot be sued without the government’s consent.4GovInfo. Brunson v. Adams District Court Report and Recommendation
Courts Cannot Remove Members of Congress
The most basic problem with the requested remedy was structural. Federal courts have no constitutional authority to remove sitting members of Congress. The Constitution assigns that power exclusively to Congress itself, and each chamber may expel one of its own members only by a two-thirds vote.6Legal Information Institute. Overview of Expulsion Clause A federal judge ordering the removal of 385 members of Congress would collide directly with the separation of powers.
That structural point connects to what courts call the political question doctrine, which holds that certain constitutional issues are committed to the political branches and lie outside the judiciary’s power to decide.7Constitution Annotated. Overview of Political Question Doctrine How Congress runs its own proceedings, including the certification of electoral votes, sits inside that zone.
How the Case Moved Through the Courts
Brunson filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah in 2021. The district court dismissed the case, finding that his grievances were too generalized to establish standing and that the defendants were protected by immunity.4GovInfo. Brunson v. Adams District Court Report and Recommendation
Brunson appealed. In October 2022, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that the district court had lacked jurisdiction.2Justia Law. Brunson v. Adams, No. 22-4007 (10th Cir. 2022)
He then asked the Supreme Court to review the case through a petition for a writ of certiorari.1Supreme Court of the United States. Brunson v. Adams Petition for Writ of Certiorari This is where the case exploded on social media, with claims circulating that the Supreme Court was about to overturn the 2020 election. That was never legally possible.
What the Supreme Court’s Denial Actually Meant
On January 9, 2023, the Supreme Court denied the petition without comment, meaning fewer than four of the nine justices voted to hear it.8Supreme Court of the United States. Docket for 22-380 Brunson filed a rehearing petition, which the Court denied on February 21, 2023.
A certiorari denial is often misread as the Court avoiding a hard question. Usually it means the opposite. The Court receives roughly 7,000 petitions each year and accepts fewer than 80, and a denial simply leaves the lower court’s decision in place as the final word. It signals neither agreement nor disagreement with the lower court’s reasoning. A rehearing petition after such a denial must be based on “intervening circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect” or other substantial grounds not previously presented.9Legal Information Institute. Supreme Court Rule 44 – Rehearing Simple disagreement with the denial doesn’t qualify, and Brunson’s rehearing petition didn’t meet that bar.
The Follow-Up Suit Against the Justices
After the certiorari denial, Raland Brunson filed a new lawsuit against three Supreme Court justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, claiming they had committed breach of contract, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress by participating in the denial of his earlier petition. The Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal in February 2024, holding that the justices were protected by sovereign immunity because official-capacity claims against them were functionally claims against the United States.10Justia Law. Brunson v. Sotomayor, No. 23-4108 (10th Cir. 2024)
Brunson petitioned the Supreme Court again. On May 28, 2024, the Court denied certiorari, with Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson recusing themselves as named parties. Rehearing was denied on July 22, 2024.11Supreme Court of the United States. Docket for 23-1073
Why the Case Went Viral
Brunson v. Adams became a fixture of election-related social media because its claims were dramatic and easy to misread. Posts spread suggesting the Supreme Court was about to overturn the 2020 election, remove Biden, and reinstate former President Trump. None of that was legally possible. Courts cannot remove members of Congress, a single voter’s generalized grievance doesn’t establish standing, and the defendants were immune from suit for their official acts.
The case is a clean illustration of how the federal system handles meritless claims. Three levels of the judiciary reviewed and rejected it. Dismissal at the threshold isn’t a sign that the courts feared the arguments; it’s what happens when a lawsuit fails to meet the basic requirements for a federal case before any judge can even weigh the underlying facts. Standing doctrine, legislative immunity, sovereign immunity, and the separation of powers each independently blocked the case, and appellate persistence didn’t change that.