Supreme Court Upholds Sanctions Against Pro-Trump Lawyers Sidney Powell, Lin Wood in 2020 Election Case
On Tuesday, The U.S. Supreme Court refused to lift sanctions against a group of pro-Trump lawyers, including Sidney Powell and Lin Wood, who filed a lawsuit challenging the results of the 2020 presidential election in Michigan.
In an order list from Feb. 20, the Supreme Court denied certiorari without comment, keeping sanctions in place against seven lawyers who were part of the Michigan lawsuit.
The suit, brought as part of a string of “Kraken” lawsuits, which were led by Powell, attempted to eliminate all mail-in ballots from being counted in the 2020 election, or disqualify Michigan’s electoral college votes from being counted in the final tally.
Additionally, it called for Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to transmit certified election results that declared “President Donald Trump is the winner of the election.”
In August 2021, U.S. District Judge Linda Parker ordered Powell and the other lawyers to pay a $175,000 penalty in a 110-page order, calling their election challenge lawsuit “frivolous” and a “historic and profound abuse of the judicial process.”
Powell has argued in court filings that her conduct was reasonable and that she had researched and vetted her claims of fraud prior to filing the lawsuit.
The Supreme Court has seen other requests from attorneys opposing court sanctions for lawsuits challenging the 2020 presidential election but has turned them down.
Parker, a nominee of President Barack Obama, said that Powell waited too long to bring the suit and alleged that the fraud claims were “nothing but speculation and conjecture.”
Parker also ordered that Powell and the other lawyers be referred to their respective states’ bar associations for disciplinary proceedings.
In June 2023, a panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld the monetary and disciplinary sanctions against Powell, Wood and the other attorneys, but decreased the monetary sanctions to approximately $150,000.
The lawyers then filed a petition requesting that the full appeals court rehear the case, arguing in their request for a rehearing en banc that the smaller panel’s order “creates extraordinary adverse implications for the practice of law” and that it “creates an unprecedented and impermissible chilling effect on zealous advocacy and the willingness of any counsel to accept controversial cases.”
However, that request was denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in August 2023, leading the group to file an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in November 2023, arguing in their petition for a writ of certiorari that the sanctions “chill and burden the First Amendment right to petition in unpopular cases.” They also objected to the sanctions on technical grounds.
“The petition raises important issues of procedural and substantive due process regarding sanctions and even more important issues of First Amendment rights and electoral integrity,” their complaint reads.
Scroll down to leave a comment and share your thoughts.
Leave a Comment