The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review financial penalties imposed on attorneys who represented Kari Lake in a 2022 lawsuit challenging Arizona’s electronic voting systems, leaving intact a lower court ruling that found their legal filings contained false and misleading claims.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The U.S. Supreme Court declined Tuesday, October 13, to overturn approximately $122,000 in sanctions against attorneys who represented former Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake in a lawsuit challenging the state’s electronic voting systems before the 2022 midterm elections.
The justices rejected a petition from attorney Andrew Parker and his law firm, Parker Daniels Kibort, seeking review of a lower court decision that ordered payment of legal fees after finding that the attorneys made unsupported factual allegations. The Supreme Court offered no explanation for declining the case, as is customary when denying such petitions.
According to Reuters, the decision leaves in place sanctions originally imposed by U.S. District Judge John Tuchi and subsequently upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The case originated in April 2022, when Lake and former Arizona state Rep. Mark Finchem filed a federal lawsuit alleging that electronic voting systems used in Arizona were vulnerable to manipulation and cybersecurity threats.
The plaintiffs sought a court order requiring the state to replace electronic vote tabulation with hand-counted paper ballots.
Tuchi dismissed the lawsuit in August 2022, determining that Lake and Finchem lacked legal standing to pursue their claims. The dismissal was later affirmed on appeal.
The district judge subsequently imposed sanctions against Parker, fellow attorney Kurt Olsen and their law firms, finding that they had failed to conduct an adequate investigation before presenting allegations concerning Arizona’s voting procedures.
Among the disputed claims were statements that the court determined falsely implied Arizona did not use paper ballots and failed to conduct appropriate testing of election equipment.
The judge also concluded that the attorneys relied on speculation and unsupported assertions to challenge the state’s election systems.
In December 2022, the court granted a request for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and federal statutes governing unreasonable litigation conduct.
The attorneys were ultimately ordered to pay $122,200 in legal fees incurred by the Maricopa County defendants.
A divided three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit upheld the sanctions in March 2025, concluding that the district court had not abused its discretion.
The majority determined that Parker and Olsen made false, misleading and unsupported factual assertions and failed to undertake reasonable inquiries before advancing their claims.
However, Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay dissented, arguing that the sanctions risked discouraging attorneys from presenting legitimate election-related legal challenges.
The disagreement continued when the attorneys sought further review from the full appeals court.
In August 2025, the 9th Circuit declined to rehear the case, although six judges supported a dissent criticizing the sanctions.
Judge Lawrence VanDyke, joined by five colleagues, argued that the district court had interpreted the attorneys’ allegations unfairly and imposed penalties that could discourage politically controversial litigation.
The dissent maintained that the original complaint challenged the security of electronic ballot tabulation rather than claiming Arizona did not use paper ballots.
Parker subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing that the sanctions could discourage lawyers from pursuing novel legal theories or representing clients in politically sensitive disputes.
The attorneys maintained that courts should not impose financial penalties merely because a lawsuit advances an unsuccessful or unconventional legal argument.
Maricopa County officials opposed the appeal, arguing that attorneys have a professional obligation to investigate factual allegations before presenting them in federal court.
According to Associated Press reporting on the Supreme Court’s decision, county officials welcomed the outcome as confirmation that lawyers must support their claims with evidence.
The penalties apply to the attorneys and their law firms, not personally to Lake or Finchem.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case does not constitute an endorsement of every aspect of the lower courts’ reasoning. It means that fewer than four justices voted to take up the appeal, leaving the existing judgment intact.
The decision concludes Parker’s effort to obtain Supreme Court review of the sanctions while leaving unresolved the broader disagreement among appellate judges over how courts should apply financial penalties in politically contentious election litigation.
Original article
Comments