As some may know, the SCOTUS docketed the Brunson case on June 22nd. They began hearing the case and should have a decision by Saturday June 24th. The results would lead to annulment of the 2020 Election which would dissolve the Biden Administration and the majority of Congress for not investigating the fraud of the 2020 election.
SCOTUS could have denied it on Thursday but are continuing arguments. The case was accepted under a rule 11. A rule 11 has never been docketed in this manner by anyone outside of a federal government case that was brought in the 1970's. Rule 11 means the case is of imperative public importance (SCOTUS had to decide that and docket this in that manner).
Prayers up warriors - I know the Brunson case has received many critics but this would definitely qualify as a swamp flush.
A bunch of people here may be misunderstanding what happened on Jun 22nd. That is the conference date for the case, the first time that the justices and their clerks will even have looked at it. All that would have been decided at that conference is whether they will eventually take the case ("grant cert" in the lingo).
So eventually we'll see in the regular court orders (check the calendar to supremecourt.gov to see the release dates) either that cert was denied or that it was granted and the case has been scheduled to be heard sometime in the 2023 session which starts this fall and runs into early 2024. So no big excitement anytime soon, no ten-days and July 4th excitement possibilities here.
Rule 11 is a bit of a red herring here. It says that the court will not hear a case still active in a lower court (as this one is - it's 23-4042 in the Tenth Circuit) unless there is some pressing reason to deviate from the normal process where we wait until the lower court has ruled so that there's something to appeal. It's up to the Court to decide whether this is a rule 11 situation - they're under no obligation to take the take the case just because Brunson claimed rule 11 when they filed.