Case: Stencil v. Johnson
2:22-cv-00305 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
Filed Date: March 10, 2022
Closed Date: June 6, 2022
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This is a case about the response to purported election fraud during the 2020 presidential election. On March 10, 2022, residents of the state of Wisconsin filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The residents sued a United States Senator from Wisconsin and two United States Representatives from Wisconsin for violation of Section 3 of the Fourteen Amendment of the United States Constitution.
In the complaint, the Wisconsin residents alleged that the Congressmen conspired to and voluntarily assisted with the events of January 6, 2021, which constituted an "insurrection or rebellion against the United States" as that phrase is used in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The residents sought a declaratory judgment that the Congressmen, who took oaths as members of Congress, engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States of America by perpetrating falsehoods about purported election fraud that occurred throughout the United States during the 2020 presidential election cycle. In their single-count complaint, the residents seek a declaratory judgment that the events on January 6, 2021 constituted an "insurrection or rebellion against the United States" and that the Congressmen engaged in that insurrection, in violation of the Disqualification Clause of the Constitution.
On April 1, 2022, a pro se citizen of the United States moved to file an amicus brief, reiterating the Wisconsin residents' claim that the Congressmen violated the United States Constitution by participating in the events of January 6, 2021.
On April 15, 2022, the United States Representatives moved to dismiss the complaint. In so moving, the Representatives argued that the Wisconsin residents lacked standing as citizen voters because the Congressmen's alleged wrongdoing would adversely affect the generalized interests of all citizens, which is not enough to confer standing. The Representatives secondarily contended that even if the residents had standing to pursue their complaint, the House of Representatives has sole authority to determine the qualifications of its members, divesting the Court of authority to issue the declaratory relief sought by the residents.
On April 29, 2022, the remaining defendant, a United States Senator, separately moved to dismiss. The Senator argued that there is no private right to enforce the Disqualification Clause of the United States Constitution and that the residents alleged only a generalized concern that was not sufficiently concrete to confer standing. The Senator also argued that Congress had exclusive authority to disqualify its members. Finally, even if jurisdiction were proper, the Senator urged that the residents failed to state a claim for relief because the residents seek a declaratory judgment with no legal effect.
The residents filed briefs in response to the motions to dismiss on May 6 and May 13, respectively. The residents contended that they have standing to pursue their claims because they are activist voters and were unable to devote time to their activism because they had to focus on the Congressmen's insistence on running for re-election despite their insurrection.
On May 13, 2022, the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty Inc. ("WILL") moved to file an amicus brief. In the proposed amicus brief, WILL contended that the residents attempted to silence the Congressmen's First Amendment rights by labeling their social media posts as insurrection. WILL argued that the residents did not allege--nor could they--that the Congressmen broke any law or encourage another individual to do so.
On May 24, 2022, the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign ("WDC") moved to file an amicus brief. In the proposed amicus brief, WDC argued that the Court was an appropriate venue to ensure accountability of those who participated in the events of January 6, 2021.
On June 3, 2022, the Court granted the motions to dismiss and denied the requests for leave to file amicus briefs. In granting the motions to dismiss, the Court pointed out that the residents wished to obtain an advance ruling as to whether the Congressmen engaged in insurrection or rebellion under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, then take that ruling to the Wisconsin Elections Commission for enforcement. The Court declined to issue the residents' desired declaration, concluding that under Wisconsin law, the Wisconsin Elections Commission had the right to independently investigate ballot-eligibility issues and that the residents' complaint was therefore better suited for a state administrative proceeding rather than a federal court. The case was terminated three days later, on June 6, 2022.
Summary Authors
LFAA (8/13/2025)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63148805/parties/stencil-v-johnson/
Adelman, Lynn S. (Wisconsin)
Avers, Robert (Wisconsin)
Burnett, George (Wisconsin)
Colon, Steven A (Wisconsin)
Esenberg, Richard M (Wisconsin)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63148805/stencil-v-johnson/
Last updated Sept. 4, 2026, 4:57 a.m.
Docket for: Stencil v. Johnson
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 10, 2022
Closing Date: June 6, 2022
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Private residents of the state of Wisconsin
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Private Entity/Person
Scott L. Fitzgerald, Thomas P. Tiffany, Ronald H. Johnson
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Other Dockets:
Eastern District of Wisconsin 2:22-cv-00305
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting:
Case Summary of Stencil v. Johnson, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/44666/ (last updated 8/13/2025).