SCOTUS Refuses to Hear Birther Case

Orly Taitz, Queen of the Birthers, loses in court (again).

Via the AP: High court turns away appeal from ‘birther’ leader

The high court on Monday did not comment in refusing to hear the appeal filed by California lawyer and dentist Orly Taitz. She was contesting a $20,000 fine for filing what a federal judge determined was a frivolous lawsuit.

Taitz was seeking to challenge President Obama’s citizenship on behalf of Connie Rhodes, An Army captain seeking to avoid redeployment to Iraq on the predicate that Obama was not the constitutional commander-in-chief because he was born in Kenya.

By refusing to hear the case, the Supreme Court affirmed the notion that Taitz’s suite was frivolous, which sounds right to me

FILED UNDER: Law and the Courts, US Politics, , , , ,
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor of Political Science and a College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter


  1. Linda says:

    Good for SCOTUS.

    Now, if only this were the beginning of tort reform, to stop all frivolous lawsuits…

  2. floyd says:

    Ever law suit is frivolous from some point of view, but the headline is wrong and misleading, just like the big boys,on national TV ! Congratulations!

  3. Neil Hudelson says:

    How is it misleading in anyway? The headline states exactly what happened…

  4. PD Shaw says:

    Were the sanctions because of the lack of merit in the case, or because Taitz is an awful, awful attorney, who doesn’t appear to know what she’s doing, can’t meet deadlines and covers it up by accusing the judges on her case of high treason?

    Maybe it’s a little of both!!!

  5. Jay Tea says:

    This is a very sad story.

    Because we all know this doesn’t mean she’ll just go away, along with her fellow Birther whackjobs.

    If we could rest assured that this would be the end of the birther BS, then we could celebrate.


  6. Contracts says:

    @PD Shaw-

    As I recall, it’s because she never argued standing. In my recollection, she used every opportunity the judge gave her to present her standing arguments to argue the merits of her case. So the judge sanctioned her (there were other problems, too, such as her inability to properly serve the United States with her complaint. It may have also been because the issue had already been litigated and the judge thought she was forum-shopping, but I’m not sure about that).

  7. tom p says:

    >>>By refusing to hear the case, the Supreme Court affirmed the notion that Taitz’s suite was frivolous, which sounds right to me<<<

    I'll say her suite was frivolous… 2 couches, 3 beds, a bar (w/ 17 bottles of scotch 14 of vodka, 12 of bourbon, 10 of rye, and not ONE single malt among the lot!) and a kitchen w/o a frig!!!!!

    Talk about frivolous suites….

  8. Ryan Spires says:

    If Big O was a muslim or an individual not born in the US, we would know. Hillary Clinton has more money than God… the birther movement I thought had ended after Politifact and Politico blew it off. Guess not…

  9. @Ryan:

    Indeed. Clinton had every incentive to use such information if it actually existed.

    And sadly, no: the birther movement lives on.