Mr. Trump and his attorneys are probably celebrating tonight as the Supreme Court’s tone was not supportive of the Colorado Courts’ stance that the 14th Amendment, under section 3, permits Trump’s removal from the ballot.
According to ABC News, Donald Trump appeared in front of his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida just moments after the Supreme Court wrapped up arguments in a landmark case. The case questioned his eligibility to hold office again under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, also known as the “insurrection clause,” due to his involvement in the events of January 6th and the 2020 election.
Throughout the hearing, several justices voiced their concerns regarding ballot access and the possible wide-ranging implications of states being able to exclude candidates under the 14th Amendment.
After the trial, Trump expressed his confidence in his legal team, describing their case as “very strong.”
During the exchange, Chief Justice John Roberts engaged in a conversation with Jason Murray, a Colorado attorney representing the voters involved in the case. This interaction highlighted the justices’ apprehensions regarding the Colorado ruling and their commitment to ensuring its validity.
Chief Justice Roberts explained that the main purpose of the 14th Amendment was to limit the power of the states. However, it also expanded the authority of the federal government under Section 5, granting Congress the power to enforce the amendment. Therefore, it would be counterintuitive to find authorization for the states, including Confederate states, to enforce the presidential election process within this amendment. This viewpoint contradicts the overall intention of the 14th Amendment and lacks historical support.
The interpretation mentioned above likely played a crucial role in securing Trump’s victory in this case. However, the next question that will be brought before the Supreme Court is whether a former president can be convicted of criminal activity after leaving office. The odds makers in Vegas are betting that this ruling will be against Trump, and the potential consequences of such a decision are quite serious.
Legal experts believe that the Supreme Court has reached a point where it is unlikely to entertain any further appeals related to Donald Trump. Recently, a federal appeals panel dismissed Trump’s argument of immunity from prosecution, leading attorneys to predict that the Supreme Court will follow suit and refuse to hear his latest appeal.
In a recent ruling, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously decided that the former president will have to face trial for allegations of planning to overturn the results of the 2020 election. This is just one of the four prosecutions he is currently battling as part of his quest to regain the White House in 2024.
The appeals panel has granted Trump a deadline of February 12 to request the Supreme Court’s involvement.
Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general, believes that the high court’s justices will not agree to hear his appeal.
“I don’t believe the Supreme Court will entertain Trump’s appeal,” Katyal expressed on X, formerly known as Twitter.
“It is important to note that anything can happen in the legal process, and for a case to be heard by the Supreme Court, it requires the vote of at least four out of the nine Justices. However, it appears that President Trump’s argument lacks strength, especially considering the comprehensive and well-executed decision made by the Court of Appeals. Therefore, it is conceivable that the Supreme Court may choose not to hear this case.”
According to Katyal, the most favorable aspect of the appeals panel’s ruling is that it compels Trump to bring the case before the Supreme Court by February 12. In the event that he fails to do so, the matter will be returned to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who will then determine the trial date.
According to Newsweek, legal expert Katyal stated that Trump plans to bring the case to the Supreme Court, which could temporarily delay proceedings. However, the Supreme Court will have to decide whether or not to hear the case within a few weeks. If they choose not to hear it, then Judge Chutkan can proceed with setting a trial date in the near future.
- Abbott and 13 governors assert states’ right to protect border and self-defense
- Soon, the US will witness a total solar eclipse crossing, offering the best view to these Kansas cities