Feb 20, 2024,10:29am EST
The Supreme Court Rejects Sidney Powell’s Appeal, Upholding Sanctions Over Election Lawsuit
The Supreme Court declined to review an appeal from far-right attorney Sidney Powell and her co-counsel on Tuesday, upholding sanctions exceeding $150,000 imposed for their attempts to overturn the 2020 election. This decision leaves the Trump-aligned attorneys accountable for their lawsuit, deemed by a federal judge as “a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process.”
Key Points:
- Powell and her associates, including Lin Wood, faced sanctions in Michigan for their post-election lawsuit alleging fraud. U.S. District Judge Linda Parker criticized the suit, citing its lack of evidence and reliance on “speculation, conjecture, and unwarranted suspicion.”
- Initially, the court ordered sanctions totaling over $175,000, later reduced to $152,450 on appeal, with portions allocated to the city of Detroit and the state of Michigan.
- The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case means the appellate court’s decision stands, allowing the sanctions to take effect.
- In a separate development, the Supreme Court also dismissed an appeal by Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers regarding sanctions against Powell and her co-counsel in another election lawsuit filed in Wisconsin.
- Powell expressed disappointment, arguing that the ruling sets a troubling precedent and undermines lawyers’ ability to represent unpopular causes or clients.
Significance:
- The court’s decision marks a setback for Powell and her legal team, who could face additional consequences, including disciplinary actions in Michigan and ongoing defamation lawsuits from Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic.
- Powell’s efforts, characterized by her “Kraken” lawsuits in battleground states, were part of a broader strategy by former President Donald Trump and his allies to challenge the election results, leading to multiple legal defeats and consequences for those involved.
Outlook:
- The rejection of Powell’s appeal underscores the legal challenges and repercussions facing Trump-aligned attorneys post-election, highlighting the broader implications of their actions on future election disputes and legal representation in contentious cases.