Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Sidney Powell, et al. v. Gretchen Whitmer, Governor of Michigan, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, No. 21-1786 · judgment June 23, 2023
Before the decision, about 1.5× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel with five or more prior petitions here, a circuit split argued in the petition, and a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and down for a state or local-government respondent.
Questions presented
The Sixth Circuit upheld large joint-and-several monetary sanctions and bar-referral sanctions under Rule 11(c)(2) for a complaint against Michigan’s 2020 election and under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for not dismissing the case as moot when the Electoral College voted. These sanctions chill and burden the First Amendment right to petition in unpopular cases. The Rule 11 sanctions were improper because the served motion did not: seek the same relief as the filed version; include the filed version’s detail and 38-page brief; or describe the specific conduct to be sanctioned. The Circuits are split on the trigger for the 21-day safe harbor for Rule 11(c)(2) sanctions (i.e., serving papers identical to the filed version versus various lesser tests), as well as on the need to show conduct akin to contempt for Rule 11(c)(3) and to assess ability to pay. The § 1927 sanction was improper because the Elections and Electors Clause claims did not become moot when the Electoral College voted, providing an opportunity to resolve not only the justiciability of those claims, but also Circuit splits on § 1927’s need to find bad faith and to assess attorneys’ ability to pay. The questions presented are:
-
Whether serving a Rule 11(c)(2) motion that seeks different relief and lacks the filed version’s brief and details triggers the 21-day safe-harbor period.
-
Whether the lower court’s sanctions otherwise complied with Rule 11 or can be made to so on remand.
-
Whether the elector-plaintiffs’ Elections and Electors Clause claims presented an Article III controversy before and after the Electoral College voted.
-
Whether the lower court’s sanctions otherwise complied with § 1927 or can be made to so on remand.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Lawrence J. Joseph
Law Office of Lawrence J. Joseph
For respondent
David H. Fink
Fink Bressack, PLLC
Proceedings
- Apr 15 2024Rehearing DENIED.
- Mar 27 2024DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/12/2024.
- Mar 26 2024Supplemental brief to petition for rehearing filed.
- Mar 18 2024Petition for Rehearing filed.
- Feb 20 2024Petition DENIED.
- Feb 13 2024Lodging proposal letter under Rule 32.3 of petitioners filed.
- Feb 13 2024Motion to supplement questions presented and to expedite filed by petitioners.
- Jan 31 2024DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/16/2024.
- Jan 30 2024Letter from counsel for petitioners filed. (Distributed)
- Jan 29 2024Reply of petitioners Sidney Powell, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Jan 17 2024Brief of respondent City of Detroit, Michigan in opposition filed.
- Dec 07 2023Brief amicus curiae of Judicial Watch, Inc. filed.
- Dec 06 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 17, 2024.
- Dec 05 2023Second motion to extend the time to file a response from December 8, 2023 to January 17, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
- Dec 04 2023Response to motion to extend the time to file a response from petitioners Sidney Powell, et al. filed.
- Dec 01 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 8, 2023 to February 6, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
- Nov 29 2023Waiver of right of respondents Governor Whitmer and SoS Benson to respond filed.
- Nov 06 2023Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 8, 2023)