A historic case has been docketed by the United States Supreme Court. Case number 22-380 titled Brunson v. Adams has reached the highest court in the land by a Writ of Certiorari from the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals. The petitioner of the case, Raland J. Brunson, is suing 388 federal officers, including former Vice President Mike Pence, President Joe Biden, and Vice President Kamala Harris, for “violating their oaths of office,” where they swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Brunson claims their refusal to investigate an alleged attack (voter fraud) on the Constitution on January 6^th, 2021, violated the oaths they swore just one day prior as they were sworn in as members of the 117^th Congress.

The case itself is not alleging electoral fraud occurred in the 2020 election. Instead, they cite the 147 members of Congress having their request to investigate (after hundreds of affidavits alleging fraud) denied signals that all other members defied their oath of office. In connection with Brunson’s “breach of duty” argument, it should be noted that the last phrases of the House and Senate Oath of Office read “… that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” The remedy sought by Brunson would result in the removal of all respondents from their current positions and would bar them from ever holding public office ever again.

A significant number of Americans believe the results of the 2020 election were impacted by “unethical activity,” to put it mildly. Those in this camp are told their beliefs have been “debunked.” But in order for something to be “debunked” it must have been proven untrue. However, these allegations were not actually “debunked” but instead ignored or dismissed, which is precisely what this case seeks to address.

The 147 members who objected to the results cited “concerns brought by constituents and legal questions that had been raised about the state’s election process.” Despite this, the vote was certified without investigation. Senator Ted Cruz had proposed a ten-day audit of the election in contested states to investigate claims. In support of this proposal, Senator Cruz noted that:

“The most direct precedent on this question arose in 1877, following serious allegations of fraud and illegal conduct in the Hayes-Tilden presidential race. Specifically, the elections in three states-Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina-were alleged to have been conducted illegally.

“In 1877, Congress did not ignore those allegations, nor did the media simply dismiss those raising them as radicals trying to undermine democracy. Instead, Congress appointed an Electoral Commission-consisting of five Senators, five House Members, and five Supreme Court Justices-to consider and resolve the disputed returns.

“We should follow that precedent.”

He went on to propose:

“Congress should immediately appoint an Electoral Commission, with full investigatory and fact-finding authority, to conduct an emergency 10-day audit of the election returns in the disputed states. Once completed, individual states would evaluate the Commission’s findings and could convene a special legislative session to certify a change in their vote, if needed…we intend to vote on January 6 to reject the electors from disputed states as not ‘regularly given’ and ‘lawfully certified’ (the statutory requisite), unless and until that emergency 10-day audit is completed.”

Had this request been granted, this case would never have been filed, regardless of the findings in the ten-day audit.

The defense being deployed by the respondents is that they are protected by Article 11 of the Constitution’s “sovereign immunity.” However, Article 11 reads: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” Brunson is not targeting states, but rather individual members of government.

Brunson’s case cites many Constitutional Articles that, in his estimation, explain why his case is Constitutionally sound despite respondents – both Republicans and Democrats – believing sovereign immunity grants them full protection from prosecution for their conduct during their time in office. Article 1 reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Brunson feels this proves his attempt to have this case heard is protected.

Additionally, Brunson uses Article 6 of the Constitution to attest that members of government are bound to the oaths they swear upon entering office. It reads: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made Pursuance thereof; . . .shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.” In conclusion, it does not say anywhere in the Constitution that extenuating circumstances can annul their sworn oath, which includes the day’s events of January 6^th, 2021.

In interviews, Loy Brunson, the brother of the petitioner who has an identical case in the lower courts under his name, makes it a point to categorize this case as bipartisan. Since the 2020 election, beliefs and disbeliefs about election fraud have fallen among party lines for the most part. But this case reveals how several members from both parties ignored inquiries and certified the election. Because of this, both Democrats and Republicans are being accused. For all Americans, it was concerning to see so many members of a newly “elected” government refuse to consider the possibility of foul play in the process that put them in their positions of power.

Brunson has a website that outlines the history of the case in its entirety, but here is a brief summary:

Prior to the case being docketed by the Supreme Court, the case had been held up in the 10^th Circuit Court of appeals. Fearing it would never move past this crucial step, Brunson successfully invoked rule 11 of the Supreme Court, which states “A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.” In other words, a case of such strong national importance – an emergency – could bypass a circuit court decision and be heard and ruled on by the Supreme Court at any time they deem necessary. Brunson revealed that the Supreme Court clerk had been reaching out to them to get this case brought under the proper format and prior to it being submitted had asked it to be brought as soon as possible, showing an interest in the court to consider the case.

This case undoubtedly contains the strongest allegations in U.S. history to ever be docketed by the Supreme Court, so could they really rule to move it to the final stage? First, consider the case making it this far is extremely rare, if not unprecedented. In addition, prior to the 10^th circuit giving their decision, the court alerted Brunson that the case would be accepted as a national emergency if the lower court did not release a ruling, signaling at least moderate interest on their end in looking at the case.

The conference date is set for this week — Friday, January 6^th, 2023, exactly two years to the day that Brunson is alleging this breach occurred. In conference, the 9 Supreme Court Justices will decide whether or not to move the case to an official hearing, the final step in adjudicating the case. One would think a case of such historic and national significance to the United States of America would certainly be on every mainstream news channel as we approach the pivotal decision date, but as we all know we are not living in normal times. No matter, mainstream media coverage does not decide what is real or not. The official Supreme Court website cited above proves how real this case is. How they decide to act on it is yet to be determined, but we will soon find out.

Share This Article by Matt Kane