The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a case brought forward by Utah resident Raland Brunson regarding overturning the results of the 2020 election.

“The court periodically releases lists of orders, and the Feb. 21 list included the decision on Brunson v. Alma Adams. Brunson and his brothers filed the case in Utah in 2021, arguing that members of Congress violated their oath of office by failing to investigate evidence of 2020 election fraud and certifying the electoral votes for President Joe Biden. That amounted to a rigged election, which achieves the same result as war, the Brunsons argued. The case was moved to federal court, where the brothers asked the judiciary to remove Biden from office. If carried out, that would mean swearing in former President Donald Trump as president, according to court filings,” NTD News reported.

In January, the Supreme Court denied the first lawsuit brought by the brothers that was against President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, former Vice President Mike Pence 291 House members, and 94 senators.

Advertisement

“The lawsuit alleges the defendants violated their oaths of office by refusing to investigate evidence of fraud in the 2020 election before accepting the electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021, allowing for Biden and Harris to be fraudulently inaugurated. The court held a private conference Friday to vote on whether or not to hear the case, releasing its decision Monday. Four of the nine justices must vote to hear a case for it to move forward,” Just The News reported.

The lawsuit, filed by Raland J. Brunson, alleges the defendants violated their oaths of office by refusing to investigate evidence of fraud in the 2020 election before accepting the electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021.

In a separate case, the Supreme Court is currently deciding on a quarter-century-old law that has protected tech companies from lawsuits and prosecution for content posted by their users. The ruling is being closely watched as it could upend rules that have governed the internet.

“Section 230 is seen as a fundamental law of the internet and considered inviolable by its staunch defenders. Section 230 was part of the Communication Decency Act, an anti-pornography law signed in 1996, that helped set the rules of the road for the internet, which was still in its infancy as an online playground for all. The idea was to protect the then embryonic internet sector from cascading lawsuits and to allow it to flourish while encouraging tech companies to moderate their content,” Breitbart reported.

“At the time most of the attention went on limits put on sexual content, a part of the bill that was backed by then-president Bill Clinton and that was later struck down by the Supreme Court in a landmark case. But inserted into the legislation was Section 230 which stated that ‘no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher’ or hold responsibility for the content that came from an outside party. Under the protection of Section 230, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or YouTube became the conduits of a world conversation without ever being at risk of a lawsuit by someone taking offense at a tweet or a controversial video,” the outlet added.

The Supreme Court also recently heard arguments in a closely-watched immigration case that could set a major precedent.

The Biden administration was questioned over its assumed authority to decide which people in the country illegally they can deport first. A pair of Republican attorneys general from Texas and Louisiana argued that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is violating federal immigration laws in doing so.

The nation’s highest court is considering a trio of issues distinct to the case and while it’s unclear which way the justices might swing, some did appear to chastise the Biden administration’s arguments.

“At the heart of the dispute is a September 2021 memo from Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas that laid out priorities for the arrest, detention, and deportation of certain non-citizens, reversing efforts by former President Donald Trump to increase deportations,” CNN reported. “Several of the conservative justices on Tuesday seemed ready to rule in favor of the states on a major threshold issue: whether Texas and Louisiana had the legal right to bring the challenge in the first place.”

In addressing whether the DHS guidelines were in conflict with two provisions of federal law, Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh cited that the law does note some immigrants “shall” be taken into custody or removed from the country, which appeared to suggest they were skeptical of the Biden administration’s assumed discretion.

“Shall means shall,” Roberts said. “Shouldn’t we just say what we think the law is,” he added while suggesting it ought to be left to other branches to “sort that out.”