Party name: Loy A. BrunsonThe Brunson v. Adams case (also known as Brunson v. Alma S. Adams) refers to a lawsuit initiated by Raland J. Brunson and his brothers. Here is a detailed overview of the case:
About Case
The Brunson case, formally titled Brunson v. Alma S. Adams et al., is a highly publicized legal challenge regarding the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Below are the comprehensive details of this case, including background, legal arguments, and the progression through the judicial system.
Case Details
Full Case Name
- Title: Raland J. Brunson v. Alma S. Adams, et al.
- Filed: United States District Court for the District of Utah
Parties Involved
- Plaintiff: Raland J. Brunson and his brothers, all of whom are private citizens.
- Defendants: President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, former Vice President Mike Pence, 291 U.S. Representatives, and 94 U.S. Senators.
Claims and Allegations
The Brunson brothers made several key allegations:
- Violation of Oath of Office: The defendants, by certifying the election results without investigating alleged voter fraud, failed to perform their duties as prescribed by the Constitution and their oaths of office.
- Compromise of National Security: They assert that the failure to investigate alleged election fraud constitutes a threat to national security.
- Denial of Constitutional Rights: The plaintiffs claim that their constitutional rights to due procedure and a fair election were violated.
Relief Sought
The Brunson brothers sought the following relief from the courts:
- Removal of Defendants from Office: They requested that all the named defendants be removed from their positions and barred from holding public office in the future.
- Declaration of Election Invalidity: A declaration that the election results, as certified by the defendants, are invalid.
- Damages: The plaintiffs also sought monetary damages, though the exact amount was not specified in initial filings.
Legal Proceedings
District Court
- Initial Filing: The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah.
- Dismissal: The district court dismissed the case, citing lack of standing. The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to show that they suffered a specific, concrete injury different from that of any other citizen.
Appeals Court
- Appeal: The Brunson brothers appealed the district court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
- Ruling: The appellate court upheld the district court’s decision, agreeing that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the case presented a political question not suitable for judicial resolution.
Supreme Court
- Petition for Writ of Certiorari: The plaintiffs filed a petition for a summons of certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to hear the case.
- Denial: On January 9, 2023, the Supreme Court denied the petition, effectively ending the legal challenge at the federal level. The Court did not provide a detailed explanation for its decision, which is typical when denying certiorari.
| No. 22-1028 | |
| Title: | Loy Arlan Brunson, Petitioner |
| v. | |
| Alma S. Adams, et al. | |
| Docketed: | April 24, 2023 |
| Lower Ct: | United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit |
| Case Numbers: | (23-4042) |
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
| Apr 19 2023 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 24, 2023) |
| May 08 2023 | Amicus brief of Paul Preston and New California State not accepted for filing.(Corrected version to be submitted) (May 24, 2023) |
| May 11 2023 | Brief amicus curiae of Paul Preston, et al. (June 5, 2023) filed. (Distributed) |
| May 24 2023 | Waiver of right of respondent Alma S. Adams, et al. to respond filed. |
| Jun 06 2023 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/22/2023. |
| Jun 26 2023 | Petition DENIED. |
| Jul 07 2023 | Petition for Rehearing filed. |
| Jul 27 2023 | DISTRIBUTED. |
| Aug 21 2023 | Rehearing DENIED. |
| NAME | ADDRESS | PHONE |
| Attorneys for Petitioner Loy A. Brunson Party name: Loy A. Brunson Counsel of Record Party name: Loy A. Brunson |
55 North Merchant St. #1631 American Fork, UT 84003 |
(801) 375-3278 |
| Attorneys for Respondents Elizabeth B. Prelogar Counsel of Record Party name: Alma S. Adams, et al. |
United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001SUPREMECTBRIEFS@USDOJ.GOV |
202-514-2217 |
| Other Robert Ellsworth Thomas III Counsel of RecordParty name: Paul Preston and New California State |
Robert E. Thomas, Attorney at Law 150 S. Nevada Hwy 160, 8-310 Pahrump, NV 89048CARGUY341@YAHOO.COM |
530 828 1234 |
Legal Analysis
Standing
- Requirement: To have standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate an injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability.
- Court’s Finding: The courts found that the Brunson brothers failed to meet the injury-in-fact requirement because their allegations did not demonstrate a specific and individualized harm.
Political Question Doctrine
- Doctrine Overview: The political question doctrine prevents courts from deciding issues that the Constitution assigns to other branches of government or that lack judicially manageable standards.
- Application: The courts ruled that the plaintiffs’ claims involved political questions, as they pertain to the actions of Congress and executive officials in the context of a federal election, areas traditionally reserved for the legislative and executive branches.
Public and Political Reactions
- Supporters: Some conservative and right-leaning media outlets and political groups supported the Brunson case, viewing it as a legitimate challenge to what they perceive as a flawed election process.
- Critics: Critics of the case argue that it lacks a factual basis and is an example of frivolous litigation aimed at undermining confidence in the electoral process.
Impact and Significance
- Legal Precedent: The case reinforces the limitations of judicial intervention in political and electoral matters, particularly regarding the standing and political question doctrines.
- Public Discourse: The case has contributed to ongoing debates about election integrity, the role of the judiciary, and the proper avenues for addressing alleged election fraud.
Current Status
As of the latest information, the Supreme Court’s denial of the Brunson brothers’ petition for certiorari stands, and there are no further legal avenues available for the plaintiffs at the federal level. The Brunson brothers have indicated intentions to continue advocating for their views through other means, but no further legal filings have been reported.
Conclusion
The Brunson v. Alma S. Adams case highlights the complexities of election-related litigation in the United States and the challenges faced by private citizens in seeking judicial remedies for perceived political and constitutional grievances. The courts’ consistent rulings emphasize the importance of standing and the separation of powers in maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.