周二，美国最高法院拒绝受理一名律师提出的上诉。该律师曾在2022年代理共和党前州长候选人卡里·莱克，就亚利桑那州使用电子投票机一事提起诉讼，随后遭到处罚。最高法院并未对这一决定作出任何解释，维持了上诉法院支持处罚决定的原判。该诉讼旨在迫使当地选举官员在2022年中期选举中采用其他方式来收集和统计选票。
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear an appeal from a lawyer who was sanctioned while representing former GOP gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake in a 2022 lawsuit challenging Arizona’s use of electronic voting machines. The high court did not provide any explanation for its decision, leaving intact an appeals court ruling that upheld the sanctions. The lawsuit sought to force local election officials to use alternative methods to collect and count ballots for the 2022 midterms. It claimed that electronic systems used in Maricopa and Pima counties were unreliable and “vulnerable to attack and manipulation.”
诉讼称，马里科帕县与皮马县使用的电子投票系统不可靠，且“极易遭受攻击与操控”。该诉讼于同年4月提出，当时莱克正在竞选州长，另一位共和党人马克·芬切姆则竞选州务卿，两人最终均未能胜选。2022年8月，联邦法官以原告缺乏诉讼资格为由驳回了该诉讼。后来，法官认定莱克的诉讼请求毫无根据，遂裁定包括安德鲁·帕克与库尔特·奥尔森在内的莱克法律团队须支付12.22万美元的罚款。
The suit was filed that April, when Lake was running for governor and fellow Republican Mark Finchem was running for secretary of state. Both ultimately lost their elections. A federal judge dismissed the suit in August 2022 for lack of standing. Lake’s legal team, including Andrew Parker and Kurt Olsen, were later ordered to pay $122,200 in sanctions after the judge found the claims were frivolous.
美国地区法官约翰·图奇在2023年的裁决中写道：“若不对此类行为施以切实有效的处罚，很可能会助长其他人效仿之风——他们会贸然为提交给法庭的文件背书，即便这些文件内容空洞或存在疏漏也无需承担任何后果。因此，实施普遍威慑措施十分必要。”2025年春季，美国第九巡回上诉法院的一个意见不一的合议庭维持了上述处罚决定。
“Failing to impose meaningful sanctions here might very well encourage others to follow suit by lending their credibility to documents filed in court without facing any real consequence if their certifications prove hollow or incomplete,” U.S. District Judge John Tuchi wrote in his 2023 ruling. “The need for general deterrence is therefore significant.”
帕克的律师曾敦促最高法院撤销原裁决，并援引了第九巡回上诉法院六名法官的反对意见作为依据。这些法官对法院全体一致决定不再重新审理此案表示不满，还批评图奇试图借此“传递某种信号”的做法实际上是在遏制那些“在政治上不受欢迎的诉讼”。律师内森·莱文指出：“若任由本案中的处罚决定生效，那些无力承担高额处罚费用的当事人或律师便再也无法提出富有创意、大胆新颖的诉求或论点——只要地方法院认定这些主张有悖于其心目中的公共政策。”
A divided panel for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the sanctions in the spring of 2025. Parker’s lawyer had urged the Supreme Court to reverse that decision, citing a dissent from six 9th Circuit judges who objected to the full court’s decision not to rehear the case and criticized Tuchi’s intent to “send a message” as an attempt to chill “politically disfavored litigation.”“Permitting its sanctions decision in this case to stand will close the door to creative, aggressive, or novel claims and arguments for any client or lawyer unable to afford the cost of a sanctions order if the district court finds the arguments contrary to its own view of sound public policy,” attorney Nathan Lewin argued.
与帕克一同受到处罚的奥尔森并未被列为上诉申请的主体。对此，马里科帕县的辩护律师指责帕克歪曲事实。他们写道：“与上诉人所称恰恰相反，他们受到处罚并非因为提起了胜算渺茫、标新立异或政治上不受欢迎的诉讼，也并非因为质疑了选举程序或代理了不受欢迎的当事人。”这些律师还补充道：“上诉人受到处罚的真正原因是他们在向联邦地方法院提交的文件中作出了明显虚假且具有误导性的陈述。”
Olsen, who was sanctioned alongside Parker, was not listed as a party in the petition. In response, attorneys for Maricopa County accused Parker of mischaracterizing the situation. “Contrary to Petitioners’ claims, they were not sanctioned because they brought a long-shot, novel, or politically disfavored lawsuit,” they wrote. “Nor were they sanctioned because they challenged election procedures, or because they represented disfavored clients.”
此外，他们还指责莱克的代理律师无视关于诉讼可能毫无根据的警告，执意“毫无必要且恶意地拖延诉讼进程”。此前，最高法院已于2024年驳回了莱克与芬切姆重新启动诉讼的请求。
“Petitioners were sanctioned because they made objectively false and misleading statements in documents that they signed and filed in a federal district court,” the attorneys added, also arguing Lake’s lawyers “unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings” by ignoring warnings of potential frivolousness. The Supreme Court previously rejected Lake and Finchem’s request to revive their lawsuit in 2024.