Supreme Court Declines to Review Sanctions Against Kari Lake’s Lawyer

In April 2022, former gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake and Republican Senate candidate Mark Finchem filed a lawsuit seeking to require Maricopa and Pima counties to use alternative, non-electronic methods for collecting and counting ballots in the 2022 midterm elections. The complaint alleged that the counties’ electronic voting machines were unreliable and vulnerable to attack and manipulation. A federal judge dismissed the suit in August 2022 for lack of standing.

The Hill

After the dismissal, Lake’s legal team—led by attorneys Andrew Parker and Kurt Olsen—was ordered to pay $122,200 in sanctions after the district court determined the claims were frivolous. U.S. District Judge John Tuchi emphasized the need for general deterrence, warning that failing to impose meaningful sanctions could encourage similar filings. The sanctions were upheld by a divided panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the spring of 2025.

The Hill

Attorney Nathan Lewin argued that the Supreme Court should reverse the appellate decision, contending that the lower courts’ sanctions could deter “creative, aggressive, or novel” claims by lawyers who cannot afford costly penalties. In response, attorneys representing Maricopa County refuted the notion that the sanctions were imposed because the lawsuit was a long-shot or politically disfavored, stating instead that the penalties were based on the frivolous nature of the claims.

The Hill

The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal leaves the appellate affirmation of sanctions in place, signaling that courts may continue to enforce penalties on attorneys who pursue election-law challenges deemed baseless. Legal observers note that the decision could influence how future election-integrity suits are framed, potentially discouraging novel arguments that lack solid evidentiary support.

The Hill