SCOTUS Declines to Hear Trump Legal Ally's Appeal

0:00

/1861

1×

Facts

• The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has declined to hear an appeal by attorney Sidney Powell, who was among a group of lawyers who were fined over $150K by a Michigan court for attempting to file an election fraud case regarding the 2020 presidential election.¹
• In November 2020, Powell and fellow attorney Lin Wood, among others, sued Michigan state officials and the city of Detroit over alleged election fraud. Their case was thrown out by US District Court Linda Parker, who then issued the sanctions.²
• Judge Parker ordered Powell and the others to pay a total of over $175K to the state and the city, however, a federal appeals court subsequently lowered the amounts to about $132K for the state and $19K for the city.¹
• Wood, who was forced to give up his legal license as part of a 2020-related disciplinary case, had argued that while his name was on the lawsuit as one of its attorneys, he never signed the document.³
• Besides the legal fee reimbursements to the state and city, Parker also ordered the attorneys to take legal education classes and referred them to disciplinary authorities for 'investigation and possible suspension or disbarment.'²
• SCOTUS has also declined to hear another case in which the Wisconsin state government tried but failed to impose similar sanctions on Powell and others.⁴

Sources: ¹Forbes, ²The Hill, ³CNN and ⁴Reuters.

Narratives

• Anti-Trump narrative, as provided by CBS. The Michigan court system rightly punished Powell and her associates for trying to bring a completely unfounded claim to trial. The judicial system is not a place to spread dangerous conspiracies, which is why the district court sanctioned them and the appeals court upheld the decision. Any lawyer who wishes to politicize the courts will now think twice.
• Pro-Trump narrative, as provided by Townhall. While Powell has been turned into a conspiracy theorist caricature by the left, the truth is that election integrity is an issue in 2020 and going forward. The problem is that Powell attempted to broaden the scope of the case too much with too little time. The amount of evidence needed to bring such a case is very difficult, as shown by Powell's unfortunate failure to do so.

Predictions