brunson v adams supreme court

Project Fab

4 min read

·

18-03-2025

1

0

Share

Brunson v. Adams: A Deep Dive into the Supreme Court Case Challenging the 12th Amendment

The Supreme Court case Brunson v. Adams (2023) generated significant attention, not for its ultimate legal outcome—a dismissal—but for the highly unusual nature of its claims and the broader implications it raised regarding election integrity, the Electoral Count Act of 1887, and the very foundation of American democracy. While the Supreme Court ultimately refused to hear the merits of the case, its dismissal did not fully quell the debate sparked by its core arguments. Understanding the case requires delving into its central claims, the legal arguments presented, and the broader context surrounding its impact on American political discourse.

The Central Claim: A Challenge to the 12th Amendment and Electoral Procedures

The lawsuit, filed by a group of plaintiffs led by Raland Brunson, alleged that numerous state legislatures acted unconstitutionally in certifying the 2020 presidential election results. Their central argument hinged on the claim that these legislatures violated the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which outlines the procedures for electing the president and vice president. Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that state legislatures failed to comply with the amendment's requirements regarding the manner of appointing electors, thereby invalidating the election.

This argument, however, rested on a highly contested interpretation of the 12th Amendment. The plaintiffs claimed that state legislatures have absolute authority over the appointment of electors, implying that any deviation from the state legislature's prescribed method, regardless of whether it was authorized by state law, constitutes a constitutional violation. This interpretation stands in stark contrast to the generally accepted understanding that state legislatures have the power to prescribe the manner of appointing electors, but that this power is subject to various legal checks and balances, including state and federal court oversight.

The Legal Arguments and the Lower Courts' Decisions

The plaintiffs’ legal strategy faced significant hurdles. First, their interpretation of the 12th Amendment is exceedingly narrow and arguably contradicted by historical precedent and legal scholarship. Second, they failed to demonstrate that any state legislature acted in a way that demonstrably violated either the 12th Amendment or existing federal law. The 2020 election was extensively litigated in state and federal courts, and these courts largely rejected claims of widespread fraud or systematic irregularities that would have invalidated the election results.

The lawsuit was initially dismissed by a district court judge in Utah, who correctly identified numerous procedural and substantive flaws in the plaintiffs’ arguments. The judge emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the claim of widespread constitutional violations, highlighting the exhaustive efforts to verify the election results through various recounts and legal challenges.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which upheld the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit reiterated the flaws in the plaintiffs' interpretation of the 12th Amendment and emphasized the lack of standing—a key legal requirement demonstrating that the plaintiffs suffered direct harm from the alleged constitutional violations.

The Supreme Court's Dismissal and Its Implications

The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case was not surprising given the lower courts' rulings and the clear lack of merit in the plaintiffs' claims. The court's denial of certiorari (the request to review a lower court decision) effectively signaled its unwillingness to entertain the lawsuit's far-reaching and potentially destabilizing implications.

The dismissal, however, did not silence the debate around the case. Some interpreted the Supreme Court's decision as tacitly affirming the integrity of the 2020 election and the existing legal framework governing presidential elections. Others viewed it as an unfortunate missed opportunity to address deeper concerns about election security and the potential for future challenges to election results.

The case also highlighted the ongoing tensions surrounding the Electoral Count Act of 1887. Although not the central focus of Brunson v. Adams, the Act played a background role in the discussion surrounding the legitimacy of the 2020 election and the potential for challenges to future elections. The Act aims to clarify the process for counting electoral votes, but its language is ambiguous in some areas, leading to ongoing debate over its interpretation and application. The case, while dismissed, fueled calls for reform and clarification of the Electoral Count Act to prevent future challenges based on similarly tenuous legal arguments.

The Broader Context: Election Integrity and Political Polarization

Brunson v. Adams emerged within a highly polarized political climate, marked by intense disputes over election integrity. The case became a focal point for those who continue to question the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election, despite a lack of credible evidence supporting claims of widespread fraud or irregularities.

The dismissal of the case, while legally sound, did little to diminish the fervor of these claims. The case became a rallying point for those who believe that the election was stolen, further solidifying their distrust in democratic institutions and processes. This highlights the broader societal challenge posed by misinformation, conspiracy theories, and the erosion of trust in established institutions.

Conclusion:

Brunson v. Adams, although ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court, serves as a significant case study in several areas. It demonstrates the limitations of legal challenges to election results based on weak legal arguments and a lack of evidence. It underscores the robustness of the American judicial system in addressing such claims, even amidst highly polarized political environments. However, it also highlights the ongoing need to address concerns about election integrity, refine ambiguous legal frameworks like the Electoral Count Act, and combat the spread of misinformation that threatens to undermine faith in democratic institutions. The case's legacy lies not in its legal resolution but in the broader societal discussion it ignited regarding election integrity, political polarization, and the resilience of American democracy in the face of unprecedented challenges.