The Brunson v. Adams Supreme Court case refers to a petition filed by Loy Arlan Brunson and his brothers, who argued that 388 federal officers, including members of Congress, failed to investigate claims of fraud in the 2020 presidential election, thereby violating their oath of office. The Brunson brothers claimed that this failure amounted to treason, as it allegedly undermined the integrity of the election process and, in turn, the Constitution. They sought a ruling that would invalidate the 2020 election results and remove these officials from office.
The case gained attention as it questioned the duty of elected officials to investigate election concerns, and its petition argued for sweeping remedies. However, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case in January 2023, leaving the lower court’s dismissal in place. This rejection effectively ended the Brunsons’ attempt to pursue these claims at the federal level.
Brunson claims that he has been told unofficially that SCOTUS will apply Rule 11 to this case and resurrect it. Rule 11 is a way for SCOTUS to deviate from normal practices in cases that are of extreme public importance, in this instance it would mean reviving a case they previously declined to hear.
Nobody knows if this is true. It is a rumor spread by Brunson himself.
From ChatGPT:
The Brunson v. Adams Supreme Court case refers to a petition filed by Loy Arlan Brunson and his brothers, who argued that 388 federal officers, including members of Congress, failed to investigate claims of fraud in the 2020 presidential election, thereby violating their oath of office. The Brunson brothers claimed that this failure amounted to treason, as it allegedly undermined the integrity of the election process and, in turn, the Constitution. They sought a ruling that would invalidate the 2020 election results and remove these officials from office.
The case gained attention as it questioned the duty of elected officials to investigate election concerns, and its petition argued for sweeping remedies. However, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case in January 2023, leaving the lower court’s dismissal in place. This rejection effectively ended the Brunsons’ attempt to pursue these claims at the federal level.
Thanks for that. I thought their lack of signing the oath of office was part of it, too. But I don't really know much about it.
So if it ended in January of 2023, do you have an idea of what the above X tweet is all about?
Brunson claims that he has been told unofficially that SCOTUS will apply Rule 11 to this case and resurrect it. Rule 11 is a way for SCOTUS to deviate from normal practices in cases that are of extreme public importance, in this instance it would mean reviving a case they previously declined to hear.
Nobody knows if this is true. It is a rumor spread by Brunson himself.
Thanks you for this!
Thanks for clarifying! I was stuck on it ending in 2023!