Supreme Court Takes Up Trump Ballot Disqualification Case
“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted,” reads the procedural order.
By Catherine Yang via The Epoch Times
The U.S. Supreme Court accepted a petition for immediate review regarding a Colorado Supreme Court decision to strike former President Donald Trump from the 2024A presidential ballot.
“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted,” reads the procedural order.
Oral arguments are scheduled for Feb. 8.
Petitioners’ and amicus briefs are due by Jan. 18, and respondents’ and amicus briefs are due by Jan. 31, with any reply briefs due by Feb. 5.
The Colorado Supreme Court had disqualified President Trump as a candidate on Dec. 19 in an order that left little chance for the actual removal of his name from the ballot.
On Dec. 27, the Colorado GOP filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking three separate questions regarding the application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and political parties’ First Amendment rights to primary their candidate of choice.
On Jan. 3, President Trump filed a separate petition with a simpler question: Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in its ruling?
The U.S. Supreme Court has taken up President Trump’s petition, and has yet to accept to reject the Colorado GOP’s petition.
‘Chaos’
Colorado was the first state to disqualify President Trump, and the first state to hold hearings regarding the merits of a Section 3 challenge at all.
The legal theory that President Trump can be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment rests on the premise that the events of Jan. 6, 2021, constituted an insurrection, and that President Trump actively participated in or instigated it. It also assumes that individual state courts at various levels have the authority to adjudicate the eligibility of a presidential candidate under Section 3.
There have been at least 60 of these challenges across the country in recent months, according to President Trump’s attorneys.
However, the majority of these challenges have been dismissed for a wide range of reasons, with several courts citing lack of jurisdiction.
Officials and some judges have argued that if individual state courts were meant to be able to rule if a presidential candidate engaged in insurrection and whether that affected his eligibility, it could result in “chaos,” with upwards of 50 different rulings.
In several amicus briefs filed with both the Colorado GOP and Trump petitions, experts and concerned voters argued much the same.
The Colorado decision has already created a ripple effect, with legislators in other states calling for disqualifications of President Trump as a candidate on their own ballots, as well as other states calling for the disqualification of President Joe Biden from state primaries in retaliation.
Soon after the Colorado Supreme Court ruling, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows similarly disqualified President Trump as a candidate in a decision phrased as having little chance of actually removing him from the ballot. That decision is being appealed in state court, and marks the third jurisdiction that has found that President Trump engaged in an insurrection—without him, or any Jan. 6 defendant, having been charged with such.
The lawsuits and wide range of rulings have raised a host of legal questions: Does the Constitution allow states to define “insurrection” individually? Does Congress hold sole authority over disqualifying candidates under Section 3? Does the disqualification from holding office allow states to prohibit candidates from running in primary elections, or can a candidate be disqualified or exempted via a vote by Congress as late as Inauguration Day?
As such, several amicus brief authors have requested the U.S. Supreme Court adjudicate more than what the appellants have asked, including to hold a full hearing on the merits of the case.
A group of 45 Colorado voters had filed an amicus brief on the Colorado GOP petition, urging the Supreme Court to do more than merely reverse the Colorado Supreme Court ruling.
Such a ruling “would solve nothing and actually makes matters worse,” they wrote. “The Colorado court has unleashed harms which will creep beyond Colorado’s borders.”
*********
(TLB) published this article by Catherine Yang via The Epoch Times as posted at ZH
Header featured image (edited) credit: Donald Trump/Scott Olson/Getty Images
Emphasis added by (TLB)
••••
••••
Stay tuned to …
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Leave a Reply