Trump 14th Amendment Eligibility Cases

[bob]

Politico: Maine judge pauses decision removing Trump from ballot until Supreme Court rules in Colorado case:

In her decision, the judge said that the issues raised in the Maine case mirror the issues raised in the Colorado case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

A Maine judge on Wednesday paused an election official’s decision on former President Donald Trump’s ballot status to allow time for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on a similar case in Colorado.

* * *

Superior Court Judge Michaela Murphy denied Trump’s request to stay the proceedings, but she sent the case back to the secretary of state with instructions to await the outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court case before issuing a new ruling withdrawing, modifying or upholding her original decision.

Politico: Maine’s top election official seeks state Supreme Court review of decision to remove Trump from ballot:

The appeal comes as a similar case from Colorado is pending at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows is asking the state’s highest court to weigh in on her decision to remove Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot while a related decision by Colorado judges remains pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

* * *

But Bellows’ appeal gives the opportunity for one more state high court to weigh in before the Supreme Court’s Feb. 8 arguments on the Colorado decision.

Without the benefit of the docket, it appears:

1. The superior denied the respondent's motion for a stay, but then remanded the decision back to SoSoME with instructions to wait for the SCOTUS' decision in the Colorado case. (This was, in effect, a backdoor grant of the stay because, IIRC, the SoSoME already said no one actually would be removed from the ballot until the courts had weighed in.)
2. SoSoME then appealed the superior court's ruling to SCOME.

I presume SCOME could:
1. Accept the appeal and rule on the merits;
2. Accept the appeal but hold the case until SCOTUS rules on the Colorado case; or
3. Deny the appeal and let stand the superior court's order for SoSoME to hold the case until SCOTUS rules.

Judicial efficiency suggests SCOME should accept the appeal, hold the case until SCOTUS rules, and then return it to the superior court with instructions to follow SCOTUS' ruling, if applicable. (It is possible but unlikely SCOTUS could dispose of the Colorado case in a manner that wouldn't address SoSoME's decision.)

Maine's primary is March 5.

[RTH10260]

Parties have jiled papers at SCOTUS. Michael Popok MTN comment of the paperwork of the former guy

► Show Spoiler

[RTH10260]

FWIW

Trump files Supreme Court brief arguing he was never an 'officer of the United States'

M.L. Nestel
January 18, 2024 5:45PM ET

Former President Donald Trump filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in his attempt to prevent being disqualified from the presidential election.

In it, the 45th president's attorneys say he believes he is immune from prosecution and that the 14th Amendment "insurrection clause" doesn't involve the presidency because he is "not an officer of the United States" and that the language in it doesn't prohibit people from "seeking or winning election to office."

"The Court should reverse the Colorado decision because President Trump is not even subject to section 3, as the President is not an 'officer of the United States' under the Constitution," according to the filing.

The brief continues:

"And even if President Trump were subject to section 3 he did not 'engage in' anything that qualifies as 'insurrection.' The Court should reverse on these grounds and end these unconstitutional disqualification efforts once and for all."




https://www.rawstory.com/trump-supreme- ... lot-brief/

[bob]

Politico: Maine’s top election official seeks state Supreme Court review of decision to remove Trump from ballot

WGME: Maine Supreme Court dismisses Sec. Bellows' appeal in Trump ballot case:

The Maine Supreme Court has dismissed Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows' appeal in the case to keep former President Donald Trump off the ballot.

* * *

The court agreed that Bellows' decision should be put on hold until the Supreme Court ruling but denied Trump's claims that she was biased in making that decision.

SCOME ruled the remand was a non-final (and thus not appealable) order, and it declined to apply any possible exception to that rule.

So the SoSoME will continue to have to sit on the eligibility challenge until SCOTUS rules on the Colorado case.

[Flatpoint High]

This just in!!!!

Twenty-five historians of the civil war and Reconstruction filed a US supreme court brief in support of the attempt by Colorado to remove Donald Trump from the ballot under the 14th amendment, which bars insurrectionists from running for office.

“For historians,” the group wrote, “contemporary evidence from the decision-makers who sponsored, backed, and voted for the 14th amendment [ratified in 1868] is most probative. Analysis of this evidence demonstrates that decision-makers crafted section three to cover the president and to create an enduring check on insurrection, requiring no additional action from Congress.”

The rest of the story:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/ja ... rom-ballot

The brief:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... 0Brief.pdf

[p0rtia]

Sec of State Colorado brief to SCOTUS

Reads well to me, but what do I know?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... Merits.pdf

[p0rtia]

Listened to Legal AF on MTN, with Popak and Karen F-A.

Karen pulled this line from the Common Cause amicus brief.

Quoting an 1787 letter from Jefferson to Madison, CC writes:

Thomas Jefferson warned that an incumbent president defeated in a close reelection camping might “pretend false votes and foul play … in an effort to illegitimately hold possession of the reins of government.”

Karen added: "Our entire constitution is designed to protect against executive tyranny."

[p0rtia]

So. Here's my WAG on what SCOTUS will eventually rule.

There was no insurrection.

Ergo, move along.

[Maybenaut]

I think they’re going to decide it on standing - that the plaintiffs in Colorado had none. Then that’s going to open up a whole can of worms in Maine since the Secretary of State is not similarly situated. Then that case will have to be litigated and there will be more delay.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

I think they’re going to decide it on standing - that the plaintiffs in Colorado had none. Then that’s going to open up a whole can of worms in Maine since the Secretary of State is not similarly situated. Then that case will have to be litigated and there will be more delay.

If it was a federal court case, I'd agree. But this came from the state courts, so standing is instead based on state law. Still possible, but SCotUS would essentially be over-ruling the Colorado SC on a matter of state law, where the state law creates a cause for action (did I say that right?) under these specific circumstances.

[Maybenaut]

I think they’re going to decide it on standing - that the plaintiffs in Colorado had none. Then that’s going to open up a whole can of worms in Maine since the Secretary of State is not similarly situated. Then that case will have to be litigated and there will be more delay.

If it was a federal court case, I'd agree. But this came from the state courts, so standing is instead based on state law. Still possible, but SCotUS would essentially be over-ruling the Colorado SC on a matter of state law, where the state law creates a cause for action (did I say that right?) under these specific circumstances.

Yeah, you’re probably right. I can’t keep this stuff straight in my head.

I think that they are going to find some BS reason for deciding the case without reaching the merits of Trump’s eligibility, though. Like whether Section Three of the Constitution was self-executing or required implementing legislation by Congress (the Colorado SCt held that it was self-executing and no implementing legislation was required).

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

That's why I'm predicting dismissal for mootness. All they have to do is wait a week and the ballots have to go out with Trump on them.

[bob]

So. Here's my WAG on what SCOTUS will eventually rule.

There was no insurrection.

Ergo, move along.

It is unlikely SCOTUS will say, "SCOCO defined insurrection correctly, but the facts don't fit that description."

It is more likely SCOTUS would say, "SCOCO defined insurrection incorrectly. Here's the correct definition. Under that definition, the facts (which we don't dispute) don't show an insurrection."

Still another possibility is, "It doesn't matter what definition SCOCO used or the facts found. Because there's insufficient evidence linking the petitioner to what occurred at the Capitol. Regardless of whether there was an insurrection, he didn't participate ('for 14th Amendment purposes')."

But my vote is on: section 5 isn't self-executing (and SCOTUS knows Congress, especially this Congress, won't execute).

[p0rtia]

Here's a video with Karen Friedman-Agnifalo (MTN) on Fani Willis's response to Roman's motion regarding Willis and Wade.

I'm a big fan of Karen's. She was Vance's number 2 at the Manhattan DA's office, before Bragg took over. She's full of useful insider info, and is a total straight arrow.

In this vid, she gives her take on the relationship issue, with lots of background. Her husband was a defense attorney, so she's up on the subject of personal relationships in the courtroom.

NB. Watching this made me recall that Cunningham, the GA legal and ethic prof, whilst he was panning the Willis response, stated that he thought it was full of holes and weak. Would love to know what he wanted to hear--details about when their relationship started, where they went on a calendar, and what the status of the relationship is now? I guess.

[RTH10260]

US supreme court to hear arguments on keeping Trump off 2024 ballot
High-stakes case on whether 14th amendment prohibits Trump from holding office because of his actions on January 6 2021

Sam Levine
Wed 7 Feb 2024 12.00 CET

The US supreme court will hear oral argument on Thursday in one of the most high-stakes cases in American politics this century, thrusting a beleaguered court to the center of the 2024 election.

The court is considering whether Donald Trump is eligible to run for president. The novel legal question at the heart of the case, Donald J Trump v Norma Anderson et al, is whether the 14th amendment to the constitution prohibits Trump from holding office because of his conduct on 6 January 2021. Section 3 of the amendment says that any member of Congress or officer of the United States who takes an oath to protect the constitution and then subsequently engages in insurrection cannot hold office. That ban, the amendment says, can only be overridden by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress.

There is no precedent for the case. The 14th amendment, enacted after the civil war, has never been used to challenge the eligibility of a presidential candidate, but the idea began picking up steam after two conservative legal scholars published a 126-page law review article last summer arguing the amendment clearly disqualified Trump.



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... r-2024-run

[Reality Check]

I agree with what seems to be the consensus here that SCOTUS will not let removal of Trump from any state ballot stand. Using the 14th Amendment to stop Trump from having any chance of winning was not going to work regardless because the only states that were possibly going to actually do it are not ones he was going to win anyway. I think the effort was worthwhile though and I applaud CREW for bring the lawsuit in Colorado.

[raison de arizona]

Cook County judge rules Donald Trump should be removed from Illinois Republican primary ballot

COOK COUNTY (WLS) -- A Cook County judge has ordered the Illinois Board of Elections to remove Donald Trump from ballots statewide for the March 19 primary.

However, the judge also issued an immediate stay to her own order to give time for the former president's attorneys to appeal.

A group of voters argued he should be barred for engaging in insurrection during the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The judge gave the former president's lawyers until Friday to file an appeal. A spokesperson for Trump's team said they plan to "quickly appeal" the ruling.

https://abc7chicago.com/donald-trump-ne ... /14477202/

[Greatgrey]

IMG_0128.png (9.67 KiB) Viewed 94 times

IMG_0130.jpeg (158.1 KiB) Viewed 88 times

https://www.rawstory.com/couy-griffin-2667538799/

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction,and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actionsin court to oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some casestook action to refuse to seat Members.Congress last usedSection 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1919to refuse to seat a socialist Congressmanaccused of having given aid and comfort to Germany during the First World War, irrespective of the Amnesty Act. The Congressman, Victor Berger, was eventually seated at a subsequent Congress after the Supreme Court threw outhis espionage conviction for judicial bias. Recently, various groupsand organizationshave challengedthe eligibility of certain candidates running for Congress,arguing that the candidates’ alleged involvement in the events surrounding the January 6, 2021,breach of the Capitol render them ineligible for office. No challenges have to date resulted in the disqualification of any congressional candidate.A New Mexicostate court, however, has removedOtero CountyCommissioner Couy Griffinfrom office and prohibited him from seeking or holding any future office based on his participation in, and preparation for,the January 6 interruption of the election certification

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product ... B/LSB10569

[realist]

Good for me but not for thee.