Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Trump Challenge to Ballot Ban On Fast Track
Colorado ballot ban will be heard on a fast track: “The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The case is set for oral argument on Thursday, February 8, 2024.”
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Trump’s challenges to his ballot ban in Colorado, in an Order just issued, with oral argument on February 8.
TRUMP, DONALD J. V. ANDERSON, NORMA, ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The case is set for oral argument on Thursday, February 8, 2024. Petitioner’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Thursday, January 18, 2024. Respondents’ briefs on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support, are to be filed on or before Wednesday, January 31, 2024. The reply brief, if any, is to be filed on or before 5 p.m., Monday, February 5, 2024.
It doesn’t appear that the Maine ban is part of this case, at least not yet.
This “should” be an easy win for Trump. I’d be shocked if it turns out otherwise. What has been happening is no way to run a country.
Trump is represented in the Supreme Court by Dhillon Law Group, where “our lawyer” Ron Coleman is a partner. Trump is represented in his DC criminal case by John Lauro, a Legal Insurrection reader.
This was the Question Presented in the Petitition for a Writ of Certiorari:
The Supreme Court of Colorado held that President Donald J. Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President because he “engaged in insurrection” against the Constitution of the United States—and that he did so after taking an oath “as an officer of the United States” to “support” the Constitution. The state supreme court ruled that the Colorado Secretary of State should not list President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot or count any write-in votes cast for him. The state supreme court stayed its decision pending United States Supreme Court review.
The question presented is: Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Dred Scott V2.0. Left has a win-win. If SCOTUS goes with Left and writes out Trump … they win. If SCOTUS rules for Trump, the Left campaigns on “revising” SCOTUS. I wager a 5-4 for Trump….if lucky.
I disagree. A win boldens and vindicates Trump. There are swing voters and young voters who truly are interested in the outcome of his ongoing trials. And it plays to the original pitch that Trump gave voters in 2016: there is a swamp out there that will do everything to destroy you should you go against their plans. Most Americans are not in favor of packing the Supreme Court as well, the alternative that Democrats have to swing to in order to “revise” the court.
There’s reasons to be something other than a defeatists here.
True… In the buildup to Normandy, projections were 40+% casualties. That didn’t happen. But, what I said still goes… for campaigning. Just how it is received is the crux. We can never underestimate what the Left will do… stoop to do.
We surely do agree there.
The easiest out is going to be that the president is not an officer of the United States under article 3.
Certainly if there was going to be a precondition or an additional qualification for president of the United States, the president would be mentioned very specifically in the amendment, and by not doing so, the presumption is that the requirements under the constitution for eligibility for president are not changed.,
Every state that requires an affirmation and oath of eligibility has failed to include language that the candidate “has not engaged an insurrection” If that was a qualification for president, then the all the oaths of eligibility would’ve included that language all the way along.
It cannot be the case that a new qualification for being president arose, without specifically mentioning it as a requirement to be president. Ambiguity is interpreted against the drafter, and in this case, the counterparty is the people of the United States and candidates for the president of the United States. Any ambiguity in such a statute must be construed in their favor.
Rather, a bold win by Trump of 7-0 or 6-1 vote at SCOTUS vindicates the perception that far left partisans on certain state courts are political hacks in robes. However a 5-4 vote in favor of Trump on the liberal/right divide will confirm to the left that the courts must be expanded and packed with liberal jurists.
And should Trump lose by 6-3 or worse then the general impression will be that he should have lost because his own SCOTUS nominations has had enough of his antics.
Now I fully expect that the Colorado opinion will be struck down over a procedural or substantive matter. The reason is obvious – to do otherwise would create a system of 50 different courts deciding by no universal standard or due process when or if a candidate can be struck from the ballot.
While I will support neither Trump or Biden in the general election, I agree that Colorado’s court opinion cannot stand. And I suspect the smackdown of Colorado will be 6-2 or more because I think at least 2 of the liberals see how absurd and destruction it would be to do otherwise.
Uh, no. It’s not really a question of if the S.Ct. will overturn Co. The Co. opinion is so flawed that the only question is on what basis.
Trump will get the win at the USSC, but given the Loon called Ketanji, it’s unlikely to be unanimous. She’ll spoil it. Roberts won’t be able to hold the nine of them together. But on an issue as important as this, a pro-Trump unanimous decision would be so welcomed.
The only possible unanimous decision would be one in Trump’s favor. Simply impossible, given the law and the personalities involved, that the decision would be unanimous upholding the Colorado Supreme Court.
Brown and Sotomayor are so devastatingly stupid who knows what they might do. They would probably just sign anything their clerks write for them.
Geez if they don’t rule for President Trump we definitely are done for
I disagree. This is an easy case for SCOTUS. There are simply too many grounds to rule in favor of Trump. A harder case will be for similar exclusion attempts at candidates for House or Senate, and for State level officials.
I agree. SCOTUS will go 9-0 for Trump based on at least one of these arguments:
1.) Due process
Adverse action by a State requires “due process of law,” per the first section of the (very same) amendment. The amendment itself does not exempt any section of the amendment from the requirement.
2.) The amendment is not “self-executing”
Although some claim section 3 is “self-executing,” this claim is refuted by the mere existence of the amendment’s section 5. This section would be superfluous if section 3 was “self-executing” (or section 5 would have exempted section 3 if Congress had been granted the authority to make the laws necessary to the enforcement of sections 1, 2, and 4).
3.) No State has subject-matter jurisdiction
Section 5 authorizes only the Congress to make the necessary laws to enforce the amendment. This is in contradistinction to, for instance, the 18th Amendment, which gives Congress and the States the authority to regulate alcohol. Section 5’s grant of authority excludes State authorities from having any jurisdiction over the matter (because it does not include them).
SCOTUS will avoid ruling on whether or not section 3 applies to Trump. This is the matter’s “hot wire” issue, upon which it is not necessary to opine in order to deliver a just opinion. Expect SCOTUS to punt. Ruling on these limited issues should go 9-0. This will be done, in part, to intentionally show a solid front to the public in an attempt to avoid public disquiet. (Although even a 9-0 ruling against Trump on this issue, with favorable rulings on the others, would show his removal from ballots is, at best, premature.)
It’s going to be either 6-3 or 5-4 for Trump.
They need to give their liberal buddies a talking point about the ‘conservative court’ keeping Trump on the ballot.
Sad, but I agree with you. There are at least two, possibly three SC justices who are so rabidly Leftist that they would do *anything* other than vote in Trumps favor.
I predict 7=2
Roberts will never rule for Trump not matter the case, Kavanaugh hasn’t forgot the assassin sent to scare him, Barrett is a snake in the grass and Gorsuch thinks he’s the next Chief Justice and will do nothing to piss off influential Senators, ( McConnell-Schumer)
They already have a campaign — to “revise” SCOTUS to bring back Roe. This hasn’t begun yet and will absolutely fry Republicans in November just like in 2022. May even be enough to reelect Biden.
I’m guessing 8-1, maybe 7-2
no way Jumanji backs Trump and you can’t embarrass a person who states she can’t define a woman
and she might give cover to the wide latina
and the left already has the votes of anyone who would “revise” the SCOTUS
no, this is gonna cast the left in the light of the loons
a total loser for the left
The swing vote being Roberts. He will vote whichever way he thinks is best for the court. Assume there will be protests and rage in the media intended to intimidate him. After all, it’s worked before.
Best for the court?
Hmm, no
Best for him.. period
Exactly
I’m not an elections expert. But, isn’t this cutting it close considering CO’s primary is on March 4th? It takes time to print those ballots which is one reason the ballot deadline for most states is usually MANY weeks (sometimes a couple months or more) before the actual election date. Or, is that a non-issue because the original order to remove him has been stayed which should mean that the state is simply moving forward with the ballot process as if Trump wasn’t removed?
Yes, Trump is already on the CO ballot.
IIRC, Trump’s name will remain on the ballot pending outcome of SCOTUS appeal. (IMO, the Colorado court’s ruling was virtue signaling since his name remains on the ballot) IANAL, but seems to me that SCOTUS could have delauyed until after the primary and case would be moot.
If it is not unanimous against Colorado it will become an American tragedy.
1000^^^*
It will not be unanimous
Bidens pick will not vote
For Trump
As usual, not a single commentator here on LI has bothered to read the legal opinion that Professor William A. Jacobson posted here. We know this because all of the LI commentators so far have posted their opinions within minutes after Professor Jacobson posted this. All they are doing is posting their preconceived opinions on an issue. They have no understanding or knowledge of anything about what the Professor is writing about. They have no interest in understanding the issues. They just want to vet their opinions. Like they do on Alex Jones and Gateway Pundit. This would never matter if this was Gateway Pundit or Alex Jones Inforwars, but it really matters here when this blog is favorably cited by the Wall Street Journal and other respectable news outlets, and has a national and worldwide audience.
There is no legal opinion posted in this article. SCOTUS simple agreed to hear the case and posted its schedule.
Jr the Nazi know it all
From now on please send all
Your comments to jrtheknowitall.com
You went on an unhinged rant about gay people to go after your nemesis, OMB, a month or so ago, JR. So professional! I wonder what the WSJ would think of that ponderous legal analysis.
I read the Trump and Co, republican petitions and the Co. S. Ct decision. What did you read smart ass?
Apparently JR does not understand that some, probably most peoples reading comprehension Trump’s his. Maybe that is JR’s problem, that way down deep, he knows that Trump is a better person.
You’ve lost your mind. There is no legal analysis posted. The only quick comments (10ish and 30ish) minutes don’t address a legal analysis.
You have some weird stuff going on upstairs, my dude.
I never “vet” my opinions
I may doctor them now and then but “vet”, never
Nobody here has a monopoly on the truth, and no attorney with any sense would declare that his opinion of a legal issue is uniquely correct. The comment section isn’t reserved for sycophants and the obsequious, but for readers to disseminate their thoughts and ideas, and for the give-and-take of differing opinions. There’s no requirement to read anything first and no rule that a post must agree with anyone else.
Boy, after reading this thread I bet JR went and bought the economy size KY 🙂 It is really hard to understand how wrong so may people are.
what are you talking about, lawyers claim their correctness, unique or otherwise on a daily basis
Jacobson posted no legal opinion here so it looks like everyone knows who didn’t read the article which would be you
JR, I read the entire article, twice. I agree with Professor Jacobsen when he says this “should” be an easy win for Trump, and that this is no way to run a country. Was there something else he said in this brief update article that I missed?
I don’t partake in whatever Alex Jones or Gateway Pundit do on their respective sites, so I have no idea what that’s all about.
Your arrogant posturing is really quite boring. You know, if you really don’t like it here, perhaps you should just leave.
JR’s rant is funnier if you read it out loud in voice of Vizzini from “The Princess Bride.”
SCOTUS should strike this down on the fact that the CO supreme court judicially noticed the assertion that Trump engaged in insurrection when there is no evidence presented by plaintiff or even an accusation from the special counsel investigating the very same thing.
Those judges on the CO court should personally be sued by Trump for defamation.
Yup. Without a conviction from a competent (and, in this situation, that means in part “federal”) court, “Trump as insurrectionist” is a fact not in evidence. Only a conviction (or an admission of guilt made in court) can provide that evidence.
sorry, judges gave themselves immunity
Of course I am hoping for a slam dunk. And I have heard so many talking heads say that it should be unanimous. Not buying it. I have become cynical. What amazes me is the legal eagles out there, battling this lawfare still believe that judges can be impartial. Bless their hearts.
Dhillon law is amazing.
Not much faith in the Supreme Court following law, it’s a political organization. If it’s a split decision you will see.
If you can be removed from the ballot for a failure to support the constitution, that would result in the immediate removal of at least 99% of democrats.
There are a lot of ways to frame this and to predict the fallout. My personal take is that there won’t be any winners, no matter how the court rules, because they’re being dragged into a political controversy that should be none of their business. It’s likely that it is a precedent that will cause untold mischief in the future as the court’s composition changes.
SCOTUS has been involving itself in politics for decades
Not like this.
Trump’s temperament, unique skills, enough wealth that he can stay the course and his love for America make him the only viable choice for President.
If the SCOTUS does not set a clear, solid, unmistakable line that even a 5-year-old can understand, that the disqualification of a Presidential candidate under the 14A(3) can *only* take place after Federal conviction on the 1948 law 18 U.S.C. § 2383 that defines insurrection, the Leftists will happily use whatever wriggle room they have to disqualify *anybody* they disagree with politically. Likewise they need to do exactly the same with 1515(a) the obstruction of an official proceeding, to restrict it to the obvious intent of destroying or concealing documents during an investigation, and lift the fraudulent felony the DC courts have been hanging around the necks of all the J6 defendants, both peaceful and property damaging (although not Ray Epps, for some strange reason). Clear decisions given 9-0 please. (although I’m not optimistic about that clear of a decision)
The nation can look for POLITICO to publish the draft majority opinion by next week.
Said opinion will vote for Colorado by 9-0.
The SCOTUS Marshal will conduct a lengthy investigation but will come up empty-handed.
All three liberal Justices will be admitted for emergency surgery. The Maine Secretary of State will stand down the vote fraud operation in Maine’s 2nd congressional district. Liz Cheney and Chris Christie will compete non-stop on CNN to see who can be the most obnoxious.
Then, the real majority opinion will be released causing the peaceful protestors to appear once again march in front of the justices’ residences chanting catchphrases that packing court is on the ballot.
So… assuming the Court rules that Trump can’t be removed from the ballot without an actual conviction for insurrection… what prevents a U.S. Attorney from empaneling a D.C. jury and fast-tracking an insurrection trial and conviction “in the public interest” of resolving this question before the 2024 election?
With this administration nothing, but I hope that would be considered as election interference.
I find it curiously interesting that SCOTUS will fast track this but kick the can on presidential immunity
Maybe SCOTUS doesn’t want the trial until after the Nov Election. Trump wins, SCOTUS doesn’t get any mud on their robes. That means the people at the polls have all the info they need to decide guild or innocence.
DaveGinOly: SCOTUS will go 9-0 for Trump based on at least one of these arguments:
While that is certainly possible, it is more likely there will be separate opinions affirming Trump’s place on the ballot.
DaveGinOly: 1.) Due process
That’s a likely outcome. However, due process is not a one size fits all doctrine. Ballot access is a civil matter. Colorado had an open hearing, then judicial review. The question is left open as to what constitutes due doctrine for this particular question.
DaveGinOly: 2.) The amendment is not “self-executing”
Section 3 asserts “shall,” which would imply self-execution. The Fourteenth Amendment both guarantees equal protection with “shall,” while also granting Congress the power to enforce the protection. Does that mean the framers intended equal protection to be dependent on Congress (regardless of the practicalities)? But sure, some Justices may latch on to that.
DaveGinOly: 3.) No State has subject-matter jurisdiction
States run individual elections for president. They don’t even have to have an election, but could choose their electors in another manner. Congress can regulate the election process, but they haven’t explicitly regulated this area. For instance, there was a petition to remove Trump from the ballot in Maine under the Twelfth Amendment. That petition was denied because—wait for it—Trump lost in 2020. Was that in error? What if a teenager wants to be on the ballot? Who decides? Again, Justices may latch on to this, cause why not.
georgfelis: disqualification of a Presidential candidate under the 14A(3) can *only* take place after Federal conviction on the 1948 law 18 U.S.C. § 2383 that defines insurrection
There was already in insurrection statute at the time of the Civil War. The penalty was hanging. The framers obviously considered that insufficient, as most of the insurrections would never be charged, but the framers wanted a way to keep oathbreakers from taking a new oath. However, it throws the matter back to Congress, and some Justices may find this a convenient way to put an end to the controversy.
* Section 3 doesn’t apply to president
No one mentioned the theory that Section 3 doesn’t apply to the president, but that is clearly contrary to the intent of the framers and is contradicted by the legislative history.
—
Don’t worry! The current situation is politically destabilizing, and the Supreme Court is highly partisan, so the Supreme Court will squint and grimace to find a way to keep Trump on the ballot.
{We may not reply to responses to this comment, as our posts are often held in moderation for extended periods.}
Z: For instance, there was a petition to remove Trump from the ballot in Maine under the Twelfth Amendment.
Twenty-second Amendment, of course.
IANAL
Quite seriously, I cannot see how it would be possible to rule to keep Trump off the ballot. If the constitution allows disqualification of political opponents from the ballot without conviction for disqualifying crimes. To even have proposed it seems very dangerous to (what’s left of) the Republic. The reason we have a tri-partite system is so that the courts can stop this kind of thing, If this safeguard fails and Trump is excluded, I think we are going so see some serious protests (I understate my belief here). No winner can be considered legitimate if his main rival is politically removed from the election.
Hodge: I cannot see how it would be possible to rule to keep Trump off the ballot. If the constitution allows disqualification of political opponents from the ballot without conviction for disqualifying crimes.
Talk to the framers. The vast majority of people covered by Section 3 were never charged, much less convicted, much less hanged.
Rand Paul on Hannity last night:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2EEYeNK9AE
Discussing why the marxist left coined the protest of Jan 6th as an insurrection
Summary: The Modern Big Lie. If they call it an insurrection often enough on TV and every media outlet and every newspaper and every interview, it becomes an assumption instead of a joke.
The Colorado State Supreme Court has to be slapped down. For it to affirmed means every Democrat controlled state will take Trump off the ballot, and every Republican controlled state will take Biden off of the ballot. That doesn’t necessarily fall on the traditional red state/blue state divide.
At which point everyone’s dance card will be full.
Subotai Bahadur
For SCOTUS their first volley should be slapping down CO SC for using an interpretation of Federal Constitution, to adjudicate a State question.
Roberts should get unanimous on that singular question. If KJB wants to write any majority opinions she will do the right thing.
The concurring opinions can touch on actions that might violate the Constitution, if the court was forced into the political fray yet again.
Strong signal that what ever some might be thinking, political process, not judicial will be the only path to a solution.
God I hope SCOTUS doesn’t mess this up.
I’m of the camp that says the 14th doesn’t even apply to POTUS and that was done on purpose by the writers of the Amendment.
But even if one thinks it can apply to POTUS no one including Trump has been charged with or convicted of insurrection.
If SCOTUS drops the ball on this we are going to have a civil war. It will be unavoidable.
Heck the odds are high we might still have a civil war even if SCOTUS rules the correct way because we all kn0w the left will start trouble immediately.
Given that USSC will likely stop 14A interference with our elections, the Democrats have a new tactic: ARREST THE VOTERS!
[[[Graves then said the DOJ is now going to target THOUSANDS of Americans who were around the Capitol on January 6 – but did not enter the building.]]]
Arrest the voters for walking on the grass three years after the fact.
No doubt they will prioritize those living in swing states.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/11/it-begins-bidens-doj-starts-arresting-trump-supporters/