Harland Brunson vs Sotomayer, Kagan and Jackson. (He sure is tying up a lot of their time, and they hired the worst atty)
God this is funniest argument I’ve ever read from the atty for sotomayer, kagan and jackson. Being able to sue anyone in government because it will upend justice, because sovereign immunity applies(what if we citizens, give ourselves sovereign immunity can we use that also?)
1:23-cv-00042-HCN-JCB Document 16 Filed 05/30/23 PageID.129 Page
Plaintiff Raland J. Brunson initiated this action in state court against defendants Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson (collectively “Defendants”) in their official capacities as Associate Justices of the United States Supreme Court.1 The complaint alleges that Defendants violated their oaths of office by refusing to grant Brunson’s writ of certiorari and that he is therefore entitled to an award of over $3 billion for breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud.2
See Compl. (Docket No. 1-1). Id.
Rather than meeting his burden by identifying an applicable waiver of sovereign immunity,Brunson attacks the sovereign immunity of the federal government and these Defendants. Specifically, Brunson appears to argue that the doctrine of sovereign immunity itself is unconstitutional because it interferes with his right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.8 This argument is unavailing.
The First Amendment protects a person’s right to petition the government.9 This right— in tandem with the due-process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments—further protects a person’s right to access the courts.10 But neither of these rights is absolute.As courts have repeatedly held, the right to petition one’s government for a redress of grievances does not include a right to a response(__oh really???) .11 Similarly, the right to access the courts does not include a right to pursue any claim against any defendant, without regard to the merit of those claims.12
Brunson also fails to point this Court to any authority supporting his argument. This is no doubt becauseno court (yet) has ever held that the doctrine of sovereign immunity conflicts with the First Amendment or the Constitution more generally. Indeed, it isbroadly understoodthat the doctrine of sovereign immunity was foundational for the framers of the Constitution.13 As the Supreme Court has explained, “the doctrine that a sovereign could not be sued without its
(“The Constitution does not grant to members of the public generally a right to be heard by public bodies making decisions of policy . . . . Absent statutory restrictions, the State must be free to consult or not to consult whomever it pleases.”); (upholding dismissal of complaint alleging that the First Amendment was violated when both the executive and legislative branches failed to acknowledge plaintiff’s petitions challenging the government’s authority to levy taxes); United States v. Vital Health Prods., Ltd., (a plaintiff may “petition the government for any redress of grievances to his heart’s content,” but that right “does not preclude the government from moving to dismiss any groundless causes of action he may present.”).
[The] right of access to the courts is neither absolute nor unconditional, and there is no constitutional right of access to the courts to prosecute an action that is frivolous or malicious.”) (internal citation omitted); see also Montesano v. New York, ) (unpublished) (the right to sue in court . . . does not afford the party the right to obtain a particular result.” (-(Seriously, I’m not an attorney but tuis seems like the most pathetic argument for an atty representing SC Justices!) (discussing the historical context surrounding the doctrine of sovereign immunity in holding that the Constitution prohibits Congress from abrogating the sovereign immunity of states).
consent was universal in the States when the Constitution was drafted and ratified.”14 To suggest that -the framers intended to trample on this centuries-old doctrine when drafting and ratifying the Constitution is simply ahistorical.
Finally, it’s worth noting that the logical end to Brunson’s argument—that no limits can be placed on how, where, or why government agencies and officials can be sued—would upend our entire system of justice.
(There is no justice unless the people can sue them asshole, elite lawyer!)
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, and those stated in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Defendants requests that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1).
Dated this 30th day of May, 2023.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.139026/gov.uscourts.utd.139026.16.0.pdf