Brunson v. Adams ( 2022 )

Appellate Case: 22-4007 Document: 010110749788 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 6, 2022
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
RALAND BRUNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 22-4007
(D.C. No. 1:21-CV-00111-JNP)
ALMA S. ADAMS, in their capacity as (D. Utah)
United States House Representatives;
PETE AGUILAR, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
COLIN Z. ALLRED, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
MARK E. AMODEI, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
KELLY ARMSTRONG, in their capacity
as United States House Representatives;
JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, in their capacity
as United States House Representatives;
CYNTHIA AXNE, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
DON BACON, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; TROY
BALDERSON, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; ANDY
BARR, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; NANETTE DIAZ
BARRAGAN, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; KAREN
BASS, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; JOYCE BEATTY,
in their capacity as United States House
Representatives; AMI BERA, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; GUS M. ILIRAKIS, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; DONALD S. BEYER,
JR., in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; SANDFORD D.
Appellate Case: 22-4007 Document: 010110749788 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 2
BISHOP, JR., in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; EARL
BLUMENAUER, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives; LISA
BLUNT ROCHESTER, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
SUZANNE BONAMICI, in their capacity
as United States House Representatives;
CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; JAMAAL BOWMAN, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; BRENDAN F. BOYLE,
in their capacity as United States House
Representatives; KEVIN BRADY, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; ANTHONY G. BROWN,
in their capacity as United States House
Representatives; JULIA BROWNLEY, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; VERN BUCHANAN, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; KEN BUCK, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; LARRY BUCSHON, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; CORI BUSH, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; CHERI BUSTOS, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; G.K BUTTERFIELD, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; SALUD O. CARBAJAL,
in their capacity as United States House
Representatives; TONY CARDENAS, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; ANDRE CARSON, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; MATT CARTWRIGHT,
in their capacity as United States House
Representatives; ED CASE, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; SEAN CASTEN, in their
2
Appellate Case: 22-4007 Document: 010110749788 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 3
capacity as United States House
Representatives; KATHY CASTOR, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; JOAQUIN CASTOR, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; LIZ CHENEY, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; JUDY CHU, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; DAVID N. CICILLINE,
in their capacity as United States House
Representatives; KATHERINE M.
CLARK, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; YVETTE D.
CLARKE, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; EMANUEL
CLEAVER, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; JAMES E.
CLYBURN, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; STEVE
COHEN, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; JAMES COMER,
in their capacity as United States House
Representatives; GERALD E.
CONNOLLY, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; JIM
COOPER, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; J. LUIS
CORREA, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; JIM
COSTA, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; JOE COURTNEY,
in their capacity as United States House
Representatives; ANGIE CRAIG, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; DAN CRENSHAW, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; CHARLIE CRIST, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; JASON CROW, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; HENRY CUELLAR, in
their capacity as United States House
3
Appellate Case: 22-4007 Document: 010110749788 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 4
Representatives; JOHN R. CURTIS, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; SHARICE DAVIDS, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; DANNY K. DAVIS, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; RODNEY DAVIS, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; MADELEINE DEAN, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; PETER A. DEFAZIO, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; DIANA DEGETTE, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; ROSA L. DELAURO, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; SUZAN K. DELBENE, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; ANTONIO DELGADO,
in their capacity as United States House
Representatives; MARK DESAULNIER,
in their capacity as United States House
Representatives; THEODORE E.
DEUTCH, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; DEBBIE
DINGELL, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; LLOYD
DOGGETT, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; MICHAEL
F. DOYLE, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; TOM
EMMER, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; VERONICA
ESCOBAR, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; ANNA G.
ESHOO, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; ADRIANO
ESPAILLAT, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; DWIGHT
EVANS, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; RANDY
FEENSTRA, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; A. DREW
4
Appellate Case: 22-4007 Document: 010110749788 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 5
FERGUSON, IV, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; LIZZIE LETCHER, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; JEFF FORTENBERRY,
in their capacity as United States House
Representatives; BILL FOSTER, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; LOIS FRANKEL, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; MARCIA L. FUDGE, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; MIKE GALLAGHER, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; RUBEN GALLEGO, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; JOHN GARAMENDI, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; ANDREW R.
GARBARINO, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; SYLVIA R.
GARCIA, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; JESUS G.
GARCIA, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; JARED F.
GOLDEN, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; JIMMY
GOMEZ, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; TONY
GONZALES, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; ANTHONY
GONZALEZ, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; VICENTE
GONZALEZ, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; JOSH
GOTTHEIMER, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; KAY
GRANGER, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; AL GREEN,
in their capacity as United States House
Representatives; RAUL M. GRIJALVA, in
5
Appellate Case: 22-4007 Document: 010110749788 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 6
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; GLENN GROTHMAN,
in their capacity as United States House
Representatives; BRETT GUTHRIE, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; DEBRA A. HAALAND,
in their capacity as United States House
Representatives; JOSH HARDER, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; ALCEE L. HASTINGS,
in their capacity as United States House
Representatives; JAHANA HAYES, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; JAIME HERRERA
BEUTLER, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; BRIAN
HIGGINS, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; J. FRENCH
HILL, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; JAMES A.
HIMES, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; ASHLEY
HINSON, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; TREY
HOLLINGSWORTH, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
STEVEN HORSFORD, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, in their capacity
as United States House Representatives;
STENY H. HOYER, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
JARED HUFFMAN, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives; BILL
HUIZENGA, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; SHEILA
JACKSON LEE, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
SARA JACOBS, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, in their capacity
6
Appellate Case: 22-4007 Document: 010110749788 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 7
as United States House Representatives;
DUSTY JOHNSON, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; HENRY C. JOHNSON,
JR., in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; MONDAIRE
JONES, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; DAVID P.
JOYCE, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; KAIALI'I
KAHELE, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; MARCY
KAPTURE, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; JOHN
KATKO, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; WILLIAM R.
KEATING, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; RO
KHANNA, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; DANIEL T.
KILDEE, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; DEREK KILMER,
in their capacity as United States House
Representatives; ANDY KIM, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; YOUNG KIM, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; RON KIND, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; ADAM KINZINGER, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; ANN KIRKPATRICK, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; RAJA
KRISHNAMOORTHI, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives; ANN
M. KUSTER, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; DARIN
LAHOOD, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; CONOR
LAMB, in their capacity as United States
7
Appellate Case: 22-4007 Document: 010110749788 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 8
House Representatives; JAMES R.
LANGEVIN, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; RICK
LARSEN, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; JOHN B.
LARSON, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; ROBERT E.
LATTA, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; JAKE
LATURNER, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; BRENDA L.
LAWRENCE, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; AL
LAWSON, JR., in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; BARBARA
LEE, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; SUSIE LEE, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; TERESA LEGER
FERNANDEZ, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; ANDY
LEVIN, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; MIKE LEVIN, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; TED LIEU, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; ZOE LOFGREN, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; ALAN S. LOWENTHAL,
in their capacity as United States House
Representatives; ELAINE G. LURIA, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; STEPHEN F. LYNCH, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; NANCY MACE, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; TOM MALINOWSKI, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; CAROLYN B.
MALONEY, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; SEAN
PATRICK MALONEY, in their capacity
as United States House Representatives;
8
Appellate Case: 22-4007 Document: 010110749788 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 9
KATHY E. MANNING, in their capacity
as United States House Representatives;
THOMAS MASSIE, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
DORIS O. MATSUI, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
LUCY MCBATH, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, in their capacity
as United States House Representatives;
TOM MCCLINTOCK, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
BETTY MCCOLLUM, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives; A.
ADONALD MCEACHIN, in their capacity
as United States House Representatives;
JAMES P. MCGOVERN, in their capacity
as United States House Representatives;
PATRICK T. MCHENRY, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; DAVID B. MCKINLEY,
in their capacity as United States House
Representatives; JERRY MCNERNEY, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; GREGORY W. MEEKS,
in their capacity as United States House
Representatives; PETER MEIJER, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; GRACE MENG, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; KWEISI MFUME, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; MARIANETTE
MILLER-MEEKS, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, in their capacity
as United States House Representatives;
BLAKE D. MOORE, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
GWEN MOORE, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, in their capacity
as United States House Representatives;
9
Appellate Case: 22-4007 Document: 010110749788 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 10
SETH MOULTON, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
FRANK J. MRVAN, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
STEPHANIE N. MURPHY, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; JERROLD NADLER, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; GRACE F.
NAPOLITANO, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; RICHARD
E. NEAL, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; JOE NEGUSE, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; DAN NEWHOUSE, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; MARIE NEWMAN, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; DONALD NORCROSS,
in their capacity as United States House
Representatives; ALEXANDRIA
OCASIO-CORTEZ, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives; TOM
O’HALLERAN, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; ILHAN
OMAR, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; FRANK
PALLONE, JR., in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; JIMMY
PANETTA, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; CHRIS
PAPPAS, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; BILL PASCRELL,
JR., in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; DONALD M.
PAYNE, JR., in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; NANCY
PELOSI, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; ED
PERLMUTTER, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
SCOTT H. PETERS, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
10
Appellate Case: 22-4007 Document: 010110749788 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 11
DEAN PHILLIPS, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
CHELLIE PINGREE, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
MARK POCAN, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
KATIE PORTER, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
AYANNA PRESSLEY, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
DAVID E. PRICE, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
MIKE QUIGLEY, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
JAMIE RASKIN, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives; TOM
REED, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; KATHLEEN M.
RICE, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; CATHY
MCMORRIS RODGERS, in their capacity
as United States House Representatives;
DEBORAH K ROSS, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
CHIP ROY, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; LUCILLE
ROYBAL-ALLARD, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
RAUL RUIZ, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; C.A.
DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; BOBBY L. RUSH, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; TIM RYAN, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; LINDA T. SANCHEZ, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; JOHN P. SARBANES, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; MARY GAY SCANLON,
in their capacity as United States House
Representatives; JANICE D.
11
Appellate Case: 22-4007 Document: 010110749788 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 12
SCHAKOWSKY, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
ADAM B. SCHIFF, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; KURT SCHRADER, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; KIM SCHRIER, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; AUSTIN SCOTT, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; DAVID SCOTT, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; ROBERT C. SCOTT, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; TERRI A. SEWELL, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; BRAD SHERMAN, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; MIKIE SHERRILL, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; MICHAEL K. SIMPSON,
in their capacity as United States House
Representatives; ALBIO SIRES, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; ELISSA SLOTKIN, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; ADAM SMITH, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; CHRISTOPHER H.
SMITH, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; DARREN SOTO,
in their capacity as United States House
Representatives; ABIGAIL DAVIS
SPANBERGER, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; VICTORIA
SPARTZ, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; JACKIE SPEIER,
in their capacity as United States House
Representatives; GREG STANTON, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; PETE STAUBER, in their
12
Appellate Case: 22-4007 Document: 010110749788 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 13
capacity as United States House
Representatives; MICHELLE STEEL, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; BRYAN STEIL, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; HALEY M. STEVENS,
in their capacity as United States House
Representatives; STEVE STIVERS, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; MARILYN
STRICKLAND, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; THOMAS
R. SUOZZI, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; ERIC
SWALWELL, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; MARK
TAKANO, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; VAN
TAYLOR, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; BENNIE G.
THOMPSON, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; MIKE
THOMPSON, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; DINA
TITUS, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; RASHIDA
TLAIB, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; PAUL TONKO, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; NORMA J. TORRES, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; RITCHIE TORRES, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; LORI TRAHAN, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; DAVID J. TRONE, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; MICHAEL R. TURNER,
in their capacity as United States House
Representatives; LAUREN
UNDERWOOD, in their capacity as
United States House Representatives;
FRED UPTON, in their capacity as United
13
Appellate Case: 22-4007 Document: 010110749788 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 14
States House Representatives; JUAN
VARGAS, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; MARC A.
VEASEY, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; FILEMON
VELA, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; NYDIA M.
VELAZQUEZ, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; ANN
WAGNER, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; MICHAEL
WALTZ, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; DEBBIE
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; MAXINE WATERS, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; BONNIE WATSON
COLEMAN, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; PETER
WELCH, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; BRAD R.
WENSTRUP, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; BRUCE
WESTERMAN, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; JENNIFER
WEXTON, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives; SUSAN
WILD, in their capacity as United States
House Representatives; NIKEMA
WILLIAMS, in their capacity as United
States House Representatives;
FREDERICA S. WILSON, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; STEVE WOMACK, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; JOHN A. YARMUTH, in
their capacity as United States House
Representatives; DON YOUNG, in their
capacity as United States House
Representatives; TAMMY BALDWIN, in
their capacity as U.S. Senators; JOHN
BARRASSO, in their capacity as U.S.
14
Appellate Case: 22-4007 Document: 010110749788 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 15
Senators; MICHAEL F. BENNET, in their
capacity as U.S. Senators; MARSHA
BLACKBURN, in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, in
their capacity as U.S. Senators; ROY
BLUNT, in their capacity as U.S. Senators;
CORY A. BOOKER, in their capacity as
U.S. Senators; JOHN BOOZMAN, in their
capacity as U.S. Senators; MIKE BRAUN,
in their capacity as U.S. Senators;
SHERROD BROWN, in their capacity as
U.S. Senators; RICHARD BURR, in their
capacity as U.S. Senators; MARIA
CANTWELL, in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; SHELLEY CAPITO, in their
capacity as U.S. Senators; BENJAMIN L.
CARDIN, in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; THOMAS R. CARPER, in their
capacity as U.S. Senators; ROBERT P.
CASEY, JR., in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; BILL CASSIDY, in their
capacity as U.S. Senators; SUSAN M.
COLLINS, in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, in
their capacity as U.S. Senators; JOHN
CORNYN, in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; CATHERINE CORTEZ
MASTO, in their capacity as U.S. Senators;
TOM COTTON, in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; KEVIN CRAMER, in their
capacity as U.S. Senators; MIKE CRAPO,
in their capacity as U.S. Senators; STEVE
DAINES, in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; TAMMY DUCKWORTH, in
their capacity as U.S. Senators; RICHARD
J. DURBIN, in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; JONI ERNST, in their capacity
as U.S. Senators; DEB FISCHER, in their
capacity as U.S. Senators; KIRSTEN E.
GILLIBRAND, in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; LINDSEY GRAHAM, in their
capacity as U.S. Senators; CHUCK
GRASSLEY, in their capacity as U.S.
15
Appellate Case: 22-4007 Document: 010110749788 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 16
Senators; BILL HAGERTY, in their
capacity as U.S. Senators; MAGGIE
HASSAN, in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; MARTIN HEINRICH, in their
capacity as U.S. Senators; JOHN
HICKENLOOPER, in their capacity as
U.S. Senators; MAZIE HIRONO, in their
capacity as U.S. Senators; JOHN
HOEVEN, in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; JAMES INHOFE, in their
capacity as U.S. Senators; RON
JOHNSON, in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; TIM KAINE, in their capacity as
U.S. Senators; MARK KELLY, in their
capacity as U.S. Senators; ANGUS S.
KING, JR., in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; AMY KLOBUCHAR, in their
capacity as U.S. Senators; JAMES
LANKFORD, in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; PATRICK LEAHY, in their
capacity as U.S. Senators; MIKE LEE, in
their capacity as U.S. Senators; BEN
LUJAN, in their capacity as U.S. Senators;
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, in their capacity
as U.S. Senators; JOE MANCHIN, III, in
their capacity as U.S. Senators; EDWARD
J. MARKEY, in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; MITCH MCCONNELL, in their
capacity as U.S. Senators; ROBERT
MENENDEZ, in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; JEFF MERKLEY, in their
capacity as U.S. Senators; JERRY
MORAN, in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; LISA MURKOWSKI, in their
capacity as U.S. Senators; CHRISTOPHER
MURPHY, in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; PATTY MURRAY, in their
capacity as U.S. Senators; JON OSSOFF,
in their capacity as U.S. Senators; ALEX
PADILLA, in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; RAND PAUL, in their capacity
as U.S. Senators; GARY C. PETERS, in
their capacity as U.S. Senators; ROB
16
Appellate Case: 22-4007 Document: 010110749788 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 17
PORTMAN, in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; JACK REED, in their capacity as
U.S. Senators; JAMES E. RISCH, in their
official capacity as U.S. Senators; MITT
ROMNEY, in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; JACKY ROSEN, in their
capacity as U.S. Senators; MIKE
ROUNDS, in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; MARCO RUBIO, in their
capacity as U.S. Senators; BERNARD
SANDERS, in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; BEN SASSE, in their capacity as
U.S. Senators; BRIAN SCHATZ, in their
capacity as U.S. Senators; CHARLES E.
SCHUMER, in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; RICK SCOTT, in their capacity
as U.S. Senators; TIM SCOTT, in their
capacity as U.S. Senators; JEANNE
SHAHEEN, in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; RICHARD C. SHELBY, in their
capacity as U.S. Senators; KYRSTEN
SINEMA, in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; TINA SMITH, in their capacity
as U.S. Senators; DEBBIE STABENOW,
in their capacity as U.S. Senators; DAN
SULLIVAN, in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; JON TESTER, in their capacity
as U.S. Senators; JOHN THUNE, in their
capacity as U.S. Senators; THOM TILLIS,
in their capacity as U.S. Senators;
PATRICK J. TOOMEY, in their capacity
as U.S. Senators; HOLLEN VAN, in their
capacity as U.S. Senators; MARK R.
WARNER, in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; RAPHAEL G. WARNOCK, in
their capacity as U.S. Senators;
ELIZABETH WARREN, in their capacity
as U.S. Senators; SHELDON
WHITEHOUSE, in their capacity as U.S.
Senators; ROGER F. WICKER, in their
capacity as U.S. Senators; RON WYDEN,
in their capacity as U.S. Senators; TODD
YOUNG, in their capacity as U.S.
17
Appellate Case: 22-4007 Document: 010110749788 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 18
Senators; JOSEPH ROBINETTE BIDEN,
JR., in his capacity of President of the
United States; MICHAEL RICHARD
PENCE, in his capacity as former Vice
President of the United States; KAMALA
HARRIS, in her capacity as Vice President
of the United States,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before TYMKOVICH, BALDOCK and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Raland Brunson appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action for lack of
jurisdiction. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
I. Background
Mr. Brunson filed a pro se civil action in Utah state court against hundreds of
members of Congress, President Joseph Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and
former Vice President Michael Pence. He alleged that before accepting the electoral
votes on January 6, 2021, defendants intentionally refused to investigate evidence
that the November 2020 presidential election was fraudulent. Mr. Brunson likened
defendants’ conduct to an act of war against the United States Constitution that
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent,
except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It
may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
18
Appellate Case: 22-4007 Document: 010110749788 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 19
violated their oath to uphold the Constitution and his right to participate in an honest
and fair election. He advanced constitutional, tort, and promissory estoppel claims
and sought almost three billion dollars in damages. He also asked for injunctive
relief including removal of defendants from office and reinstatement of Donald
Trump as President of the United States.
Defendants removed the case to federal district court and filed a motion to
dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (lack of jurisdiction) and
12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim). Mr. Brunson filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss. A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (Recommendation)
that the action be dismissed for two independent reasons: (1) Mr. Brunson lacked
constitutional standing because his claimed injury was not concrete and personal to
him but only the same as any citizen, and (2) Eleventh Amendment sovereign
immunity barred the claims against the defendants, who were sued in their official
capacity only, and Mr. Brunson failed to identify any statute or other express
provision that unequivocally waives that immunity for his claims.1
Mr. Brunson filed a timely objection to the Recommendation, arguing only
that the magistrate judge did not address the arguments in his opposition to the
motion to dismiss and thereby deprived him of due process. The district court
overruled the objection, concluding there was no authority for Mr. Brunson’s
proposition “that a reviewing court must specifically address arguments made in a
1
The magistrate judge provided various alternative grounds for dismissal, but
we need not consider them in this appeal.
19
Appellate Case: 22-4007 Document: 010110749788 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 20
brief,” and finding he “was afforded procedural due process by receiving notice of
the motion to dismiss and having a reasonable opportunity to respond to it.”
R. at 510. Because Mr. Brunson did not assert any objections to the magistrate
judge’s conclusions that he lacked standing or that the defendants were entitled to
sovereign immunity, the district court determined he had “waived any objections to
[those] conclusions.” Id. The court then adopted the Recommendation in full,
dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and entered a separate
judgment. This appeal followed.
II. Discussion
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of an action under
Rule 12(b)(1). Chance v. Zinke, 898 F.3d 1025, 1028 (10th Cir. 2018). We construe
Mr. Brunson’s pro se filings liberally, but we may not act as his advocate. Yang v.
Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008).
Mr. Brunson first argues that the district court’s separate judgment is invalid
because it fails to set forth the legal basis for the judgment.2 This argument is
frivolous. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 requires a district court to set out its
judgment in a document separate from the court’s explanation of the reasons for the
disposition. See Taumoepeau v. Mfrs. & Traders Tr. Co. (In re Taumoepeau),
523 F.3d 1213, 1217 & n.4 (10th Cir. 2008). The district court’s judgment did just
2
The body of the judgment states: “IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that
plaintiff Raland Brunson’s action is dismissed without prejudice.” R. at 512.
20
Appellate Case: 22-4007 Document: 010110749788 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 21
that, and the reasons for the dismissal were thoroughly explained in the
Recommendation and the district court’s order adopting it.
Mr. Brunson next contests the merits of the magistrate judge’s standing
analysis. But as noted, in his objection, he did not address the standing analysis; he
only faulted the magistrate judge for not discussing the arguments he raised in his
opposition to the motion to dismiss. This court has “adopted a firm waiver rule” with
regard to objections to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. United
States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation
marks omitted). To avoid waiving appellate review of factual and legal questions, “a
party’s objections to [a] magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must be both
timely and specific.” Id. at 1060 (emphasis added). This means the objection must
be “sufficiently specific to focus the district court’s attention on the factual and legal
issues that are truly in dispute.” Id.Although Mr. Brunson’s objection was timely, he did not specifically
challenge the magistrate judge’s standing analysis. The firm waiver rule therefore
applies unless the interests of justice dictate otherwise.3 “[F]actors this court has
considered in determining whether to invoke the [interests-of-justice] exception” are
“a pro se litigant’s effort to comply, the force and plausibility of the explanation for
3
This rule also does not apply when “a pro se litigant has not been informed of
the time period for objecting and the consequences of failing to object.”
Morales-Fernandez v. INS, 418 F.3d 1116, 1119 (10th Cir. 2005). But Mr. Brunson
received the proper warning in this case.
21
Appellate Case: 22-4007 Document: 010110749788 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 22
his failure to comply, and the importance of the issues raised.” Morales-Fernandez
v. INS, 418 F.3d 1116, 1120 (10th Cir. 2005).
Mr. Brunson makes no effort to explain why he failed to specifically challenge
the magistrate judge’s standing analysis. The first two factors therefore weigh
against invoking the exception.
In considering the third factor, “the importance of the issues raised,” we
conduct an analysis akin to plain-error review. See id. “Plain error occurs when
there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, which (3) affects substantial rights, and which
(4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” Id. at 1122–23 (internal quotation marks omitted). We cannot say the
district court’s conclusion that Mr. Brunson lacked standing is plainly erroneous. As
the magistrate judge explained, the relevant Article III standing inquiry is “‘whether
the party seeking relief has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the
controversy as to assure concrete adverseness.’” R. at 395 (ellipsis and emphasis
omitted) (quoting United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 173 (1974)). And a
plaintiff like Mr. Brunson, who
raise[s] only a generally available grievance about government—claiming
only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the
Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly
benefits him than it does the public at large—does not state an Article III
case or controversy.
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 573–74 (1992). Thus, the district court did
not plainly err in concluding Mr. Brunson lacked standing.
22
Appellate Case: 22-4007 Document: 010110749788 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 23
Mr. Brunson’s argument does not persuade us otherwise. Essentially, he
contends that because he alleged the defendants acted fraudulently, and because
“‘fraud vitiates whatever it touches,’” Aplt. Opening Br. at 5 (quoting Est. of
Stonecipher v. Est. of Butts, 591 S.W.2d 806, 809 (Tex. 1979)), he has an “unfettered
right to sue the Defendants,” id. at 2, and any federal law or case law is inapplicable
if it “support[s] treason, acts of war or the violation of Brunson’s inherent
unalienable (God-given) rights,” id. at 8. But none of his supporting authorities
suggests that allegations of fraud, acts of war, or the violation of allegedly “inherent
unalienable (God-given) rights,” id., relieve a plaintiff from demonstrating Article III
standing.
Finally, Mr. Brunson briefly mentions the magistrate judge’s Eleventh
Amendment sovereign immunity analysis, but he develops no argument addressing
the magistrate judge’s reasoning other than to direct us to his opposition to the
motion to dismiss. That is insufficient to meet this court’s requirements for
developing an argument on appeal. See United States v. Patterson, 713 F.3d 1237,
1250 (10th Cir. 2013). Thus, setting aside the antecedent inquiry whether the firm
waiver rule precludes our review of this aspect of the dismissal, we conclude
Mr. Brunson has waived appellate review of the sovereign-immunity basis for
dismissal due to insufficient argument. See id.4
4
And even if we were to overlook this obstacle to review, Mr. Brunson’s lack
of success on the merits of his arguments relating to standing is, by itself, a sufficient
basis for affirming the district court’s judgment regardless of the merits of his
23
Appellate Case: 22-4007 Document: 010110749788 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 24
III. Conclusion
The district court’s judgment is affirmed.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
argument relating to sovereign immunity. See Murrell v. Shalala, 43 F.3d 1388,
1390 (10th Cir. 1994).
24