Supreme Court Rejects Case To Reinstate Trump Over 'Rigged' Election

Joe Biden Donald Trump
Joe Biden Donald Trump

This story has been updated since it was originally published to reflect the information that the Supreme Court declined to consider the appeal to the Brunson v. Adams case on Tuesday, February 21st

Raland, Deron, and Loy Brunson, the three brothers hoping to reinstate former President Donald Trump in the White House, have suffered yet another setback as their case has been rejected for the second time by the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Denies Rehearing Of Brunson v. Adams

Justices turned down the request for the rehearing of Brunson v. Adams on Tuesday, February 21st, making it even less likely for the Utah brothers to succeed in removing President Joe Biden from office. They are not giving up, however, and Raland Brunson took to Facebook the same day, saying: “[Second] Petition denied. Moving on to plan C. I will say more about that within the next few days. We have been working long and hard on these strategies and there are more to come.”

“We understand this to be a possible long but worthy goal,” he continued. “The result is that everyone in this nation will have the peace of mind that comes from knowing that the candidate of their choice will be bound by their oath to protect the rights and freedom of the people they represent.”

The U.S. Supreme Court previously dismissed the case for the first time on Monday, January 9th, declining without comment to hear Raland Brunson’s October 2022 petition. Brunson posted an update on Facebook following the court’s January 9th decision, writing: “The petition was denied. We will now make our next move. A petition for reconsideration. Hang in [there] everyone.”

READ MORE: Grand Jury Member Leaks News About Charges To Be Filed Against In Donald Trump Case: ‘It’s Not A Short List!

What Is The Brunson v. Adams Case?

The Brunson v. Adams lawsuit seeks to remove President Joe Biden, 80, from the White House and reinstate former President Donald Trump, 76, as President of the United States, as it claims that lawmakers violated their oaths of office by refusing to investigate the allegedly fraudulent 2020 general election which it claims was rigged in Biden's favor.

Plaintiff Raland Brunson claims that the defendants – which include almost 400 members of Congress, as well as Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and former Vice President Mike Pence – voted to certify the 2020 presidential election despite receiving a valid request from 154 members of Congress to investigate the unfounded claims of electoral fraud in six states.

The lawsuit claims that Brunson's vote for Trump, which he cast in Utah back in 2020, was made invalid due to election fraud. The suit called for all 387 members of Congress who voted to certify Biden's electoral votes to be removed from their role, along with Biden and Harris, and be prohibited from running for office again. Brunson is also reportedly seeking $2B tax-free in damages.

Brunson Filed Appeal Following SCOTUS' Initial Decision

Brunson filed an appeal on January 23rd, and according to an update on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) website, at the time, the lawsuit was "distributed for conference" on Friday, February 17th. However, as we previously mentioned, the request for the rehearing was turned down on Tuesday, February 21st.

In the January 23rd appeal, Brunson said the court should grant a rehearing because the case "represents a very powerful domestic covert operation that is so benign that it cannot been seen on how it has breached our national security, and how it is affecting the national security of both Canada and Mexico, and how it has circulated fears that we might soon see the destruction of property along with a large volume of bloodshed in our own streets."

Trump's Former Legal Advisor Supports Supreme Court's Initial Decision

Interestingly, Jenna Ellis, a former senior legal adviser to former President Donald Trump actually supported the Supreme Court's decision to reject hearing the case, writing on Twitter: "This is the right call and predicted. The Supreme Court is not the arbiter of how a member does his or her job. This is a nonjusticiable issue. Imagine if a future Dem sought removal of members for 'failing to investigate' Trump. This would open the door to further weaponizing."