The Florida Supreme Court has declined to suspend the Florida law license of Kenneth Chesebro, convicted in Georgia of filing a false list of electors there to undermine Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election.

Instead, the justices issued a reprimand over the objection of Justice Jorge Labarga, the sole member of the court not appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis. (Former Gov. Charlie Crist placed him on the Supreme Court in January 2009.)

“In my view, the intentional commission of fraud upon the court is one of the most egregious ethical transgressions a lawyer can commit, and such serious misconduct necessitates the imposition of severe professional sanctions,” Labarga wrote.

Labarga said a written reprimand is “disproportionate to the severity of Chesebro’s grave ethical violations” and called Chesebro’s actions “an intolerable breach of professional ethics.” 

Chesebro was a key figure in the plot to submit fraudulent certificates claiming that Trump won the battleground states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan,New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, instead of Biden.

He was among 77 people pardoned by Trump for any federal crimes shortly after Trump resumed office. The pardon would not preclude any state charges.

Chesebro pleaded guilty in October 2023 in Fulton County, Ga., Superior Court to a felony charge of conspiracy to commit filing false documents for his role in the fake electors plan, Phoenix affiliate Georgia Recorder has reported. He was sentenced to five years’ probation.

Republican lawmakers and the state of Florida filed briefs Monday ahead of an imminent Florida Supreme Court ruling that could clear the way for the GOP to use a gerrymandered congressional map this year — and invalidate the state’s voter-approved ban on gerrymandering.

Florida voters and voting advocates are challenging the new map — which could net four more GOP seats in Congress — arguing that it violates Florida’s voter-approved Fair Districts Amendment (FDA).

But in their latest court filing, Republican state representatives argued the court should find the FDA unconstitutional and strike down the amendment, which was passed by voters in 2010, in its entirety.

Pro-voters have argued that even if the court strikes down the racial gerrymandering prohibition that Republicans now claim violates the U.S. Constitution in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, it could still uphold the provisions of the FDA that ban partisan gerrymanders.

But Republican lawmakers insisted Monday that the court should invalidate the whole amendment, arguing “(t)he removal of one standard alters the recipe the voters approved.”