Andrew D. Parker, et al. v. Bill Gates, as a Member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, et al.

Petitioners brought claims on behalf of candidates in advance of the 2022 election, challenging the procedures Arizona would use to count votes in that and future elections. After the claims were dismissed for lack of standing, the Ninth Circuit affirmed Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanctions against Petitioners that the district court imposed to “send a message” deterring future litigants because it believed Petitioners’ pleading threatened “public trust.” App.9. Six circuit judges dissented from denial of Petitioners’ petition for rehearing en banc, warning of “the district court’s weaponization of sanctions to chill politically disfavored litigation” that presented “danger to the rule of law.” App.147.

1. May a district court sanction attorneys to “send a message” not to file politically disfavored lawsuits?

2. May a district court sanction attorneys for presenting legal arguments that are deemed novel or a long shot?

3. May a district court construe a complaint in a light least favorable to attorneys and then impose sanctions based on that construction?

4. Is a motion for prospective injunctive relief sanctionable based on Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), where the motion is heard nearly four months before the next election and the motion also seeks relief concerning future elections after the next election?