Brunson v. Adams: The Little Known Case That Made It To The Supreme Court On Government Collusion During and After The 2020 Election 

brunson v. adams
A statue of the blindfolded Lady Justice in front of the United States Supreme Court.

January 5, 2023

Brunson v. Adams (2022) is a little known case that has reached the United States Supreme Court. The private conference to review the case is scheduled this week on the second anniversary of January 6, the infamous day of the Capitol riot known to many Democrats as a failed, but deadly insurrection. 

Raland Brunson of Ogden, Utah, and his three brothers are the plaintiffs/appellants seeking to remove President Joe Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris, alleging that members of Congress violated their constitutional duty by not looking at claims of election fraud in the 2020 presidential election, according to Western Journal.  

The case also has the potential to remove 388 members of Congress. 

Powered By EmbedPress

Former Arkansas Mike Huckabee brought attention to the case in a piece he wrote on his substack. 

“Sit down; I guarantee this Supreme Court story is real,” he began.

“The Supreme Court has agreed to a hearing for a case that could conceivably—PLEASE consider this the longest of long shots—overturn the election of 2020, throw out all the legislators who voted to certify the results and leave them ineligible to run for office ever again, even for town dogcatcher,” he explained.

The argument from the Brunsons states that the lawmakers took an oath to defend the Constitution  “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” 

In spite of their oath, they “purposely thwarted all efforts to investigate [allegations of fraud in the 2020 election], whereupon this enemy was not checked or investigated, therefore the Respondents adhered to this enemy,” the case filing states. 

(READ MORE: Business As Usual: FBI Responds to ‘Twitter Files’ Revealing Suppression of Hunter Biden Laptop Story Ahead of 2020 Election)

The Brunsons are not trying to confirm or deny that fraud occurred in 2020 but are reportedly targeting the process of certification where 388 lawmakers refused to listen to “over 100 members of U.S. Congress claim[ing] factual evidence that the said election was rigged.” 

“A successfully rigged election has the same end result as an act of war; to place into power whom the victor wants, which in this case is Biden, who, if not stopped immediately, will continue to destroy the fundamental freedoms of Brunson and all U.S. Citizens and courts of law.” 

As Huckabee notes, if the suit is targeting civil servants who did not uphold their oath, that includes Vice Presidents Kamala Harris and Mike Pence. 

Tim Canova, a constitutional law scholar and professor at Nova Southeastern University’s Shepard Broad College of Law in Florida, reportedly said that it would be astounding that the Supreme Court would wait two years into Biden’s term to take up this case, but “these are not normal times.” 

But according to other reports, the Supreme Court allegedly asked the Brunsons to speed up their submission. The request comes as Congress is threatening to impose term limits on the Court. H.R.5140, “Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act of 2021” was introduced in the House in August 2021, where it has since stalled. However, this claim has not been confirmed.

Prior to January 6, when the Senate convened to confirm the certified election results from each state, Congress was reportedly put on notice by the more than 100 lawmakers who detailed allegations of fraud and who called for appointing an electoral commission to investigate them, according to Canova. 

The creation of an electoral commission would not be unprecedented in United States history. When the 1876 presidential election results were being questioned, Congress created a commission composed of five House members, five Senators, and five Supreme Court Justices. Fast forwarding to 2021, Congress had two weeks from January 6 to January 20, the date of the Presidential Inauguration, to investigate the claims. 

(READ MORE: The Illusion of Democracy: The Technocrats’ PSYOP)

If Congress had waited until January 7, they would have received a report from the Office of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). The ODNI was “required to submit a report on foreign threats to the 2020 Presidential election by December 18, 2020,” a deadline reportedly set by Congress and executive order. 

When the date passed, members of Congress should have reportedly investigated why the report was not submitted. Rather than a report, the director of national intelligence (DNI) John Ratcliffe had announced that they did find foreign election interference but did not know the significance of its effect on the election results and whether it was a breach to national security. 

On January 6, Congress approved the certifications of the election results without a question. 

But then came the ODNI report on January 7. It reflected a split in the Intelligence Community, but the DNI’s conclusion was that the People’s Republic of China did interfere to influence the outcome of the 2020 election. Because of their disagreements with the Trump administration, the Intelligence Community delayed their findings until after January 6, according to Dr. Barry A. Zulauf, the Analytic Ombudsman for the Intelligence Community. 

“This paints a picture of collusion and conspiracy involving members of Congress and U.S. intelligence agencies to cover up evidence of foreign election interference and constituting crimes of Treason,” Canova writes. 

He continues to raise concerns about the collusion between the January 6 Select Committee and Intelligence Community.  

“The fact that the Brunson case has made it to the Court’s docket suggests profound concerns about a lawless January 6th Congressional committee, politicized federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and major constitutional violations intended to overthrow an elected government by manipulating the outcome of the presidential election.” 

Correction: A previous version of the article stated that oral arguments were to be heard January 6, 2023. The updated version reflects that a private conference will be held to review the case on January 6, which will determine whether or not oral arguments will be heard.


With all this rampant censorship, we rely on our readers to spread our content.

Leave a Reply

More content