Where does the next challenge stand to Trump’s candidacy?

The Case of the 14th Amendment: What the Supreme Court can do to prevent Trump from running for the presidency? A comment on Levitt and Christie

Several prominent Republicans, including Trump’s rivals for the presidential nomination, are threatening to take action against the Colorado court’s decision.

The implications of this case for future elections are something the Supreme Court could take seriously, according to a professor from the University of Baltimore school of law.

“I think there should be an incentive along the way to say to would-be presidents, ‘Listen, don’t do what happened on Jan. 6, there’ll be consequences for it,'” she added. “But we’re in a politicized world and we have, arguably, a politicized Supreme Court.”

Experts say it could choose to send the case back to the state level, or avoid ruling on the merits in some other way (like focusing on the wording of the clause, as the lower court in Colorado did).

Public confidence in the court has plunged amid ethics scandals and the move to overturn a landmark abortion case last term. The sheer number of issues now on its docket that relate to Trump could prompt even more intense scrutiny.

When considering the 14th Amendment, Levitt says the tough question is not whether Trump is qualified to hold office, but who gets to make that call. He believes the courts will let the people decide, but he’s a little doubtful about it because the law will make a decision.

“There are a lot of questions that, if we get to November and the American people decide they don’t want him as their chief executive, that the courts never have to decide,” he adds.

The “thoughtful” opinion gives other courts something to look at, to see if they agree or disagree, he noted. But he said the incentives remain basically the same for Trump’s team to slow the process down and for the other side to speed things up.

Courts have ruled against similar efforts in Arizona, Minnesota and Michigan but other legal battles are still pending in other states.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who’s campaigned to stop Trump from returning to office, criticized the court’s ruling shortly after it came out. He said that Trump shouldn’t be precluded from being president by a court because of the voters.

The Colorado Republican National Committee is hoping to keep Donald Trump from the general election – a case against a civil war-era constitutional clause

That may not be easy since the state party’s plan has been approved by the RNC. Williams told the outlet that Colorado Republicans would “seek a waiver and probably get it.”

The Colorado Republican Party launched an online campaign to encourage donors to help keep Trump on the ballot.

The legal team of the Republican National Committee “looks forward to helping fight for a victory” in relation to the expected appeal by Trump, according to a statement written online by the committee’s chair.

“All of this is very important for the foreseeable future, where we will get to have this fight again,” he said. The immediate impact isn’t determinative in the primary.

If Trump wins the primary, there will be a legal effort to keep him off the general election ballot for the same reason.

President Biden said on Wednesday that if the 14th amendment applies, he’ll let the court make the decision.

Steven Cheung, a Trump campaign spokesman, called the decision completely flawed and said that they would immediately file an appeal and a request for a stay of the decision.

In the first case of its kind in any state, the high court found that a section of the US Constitution applies to both the office of president and Trump’s conduct.

Legal scholars and activists on the left have argued that a Civil War-era constitutional clause should prevent former President Donald Trump from holding office again.

They contend that Trump’s words and actions on and around the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol attack violate Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars from office anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States. Many states have brought that argument to court.

The Case of Joseph Fischer: The United States Supreme Court is poised for a pivotal role in the 21st century abortion debate and the 2020 presidential election

“Because he is disqualified, it would be wrongful for the secretary to list him on the presidential primary ballot since he’s ineligible,” the opinion reads.

Patients can now get prescriptions by mail and take them via telepresence from the Food and Drug Administration. The most widely used method of abortion is medication abortions.

The court’s decision to overturn the contraceptives ban, known as Wade v. Wade, has made abortion rights a big topic on the campaign trail. The court won’t have the last word on abortion.

The majority of the court wrote that they did not reach these conclusions lightly. “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”

Litigation is pending in 13 states and challenges are being appealed in two others — crucial swing states Michigan and Arizona, according to Lawfare, a nonprofit law and policy analysis publication tracking the lawsuits. In Maine, where state law requires the secretary of state to preside over ballot challenges, a declaration on Trump’s eligibility is expected in the coming days.

But prosecutors have deployed that law against more than 300 other Capitol rioters — and it forms the basis of two charges against Trump in the D.C. federal case, leading to questions about whether the court might upset dozens of other convictions and sentences.

Last week, the Supreme Court announced it would review the case of Joseph Fischer, a former police officer charged with obstructing an official proceeding at the Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021. He says the Justice Department overreached when it charged him with corporate fraud.

Less than a year away from the 2024 presidential election, one thing is now clear: The Supreme Court is poised to play a pivotal — if not decisive — role.

“The 2024 election is going to be hard enough as it is. So the sooner we know what the fundamental rules are the better off we are going to be,” he said.

Even though the justices are doing their job, Guy- Uriel Charles, a Harvard law professor who specializes in election law, said it’s important for the court to resolve this as soon as possible.

“We now have a definitive, for the first time, state supreme court ruling on those questions. Bonifaz said that it’s applicable to the other states.

The lawsuits share many of the same legal questions, he said, including whether the 14th Amendment applies to the president and whether courts can enforce it without congressional legislation.

Free Speech For People, the Colorado Decision, and Other Challenges in the Case of a Right-Handed Voting Voting Rights Group

The Colorado decision will have a large impact on the group’s other challenges, according to an attorney and the president of Free Speech For People.

Two other notable suits are taking place in Oregon and Michigan. There, state supreme courts are currently considering cases brought by Free Speech For People, a left-leaning election reform advocacy group. The group was dismissed from the challenge in Minnesota because the state court said political parties have the right to put ineligible candidates on the ballot. The group plans to file more challenges in the future.

He said that other states may have different requirements for legal success. “It really depends state by state on what the state law looks like, what relief voters can see in the courts, what jurisdictional authority courts or the secretary of state have,” Sherman said.

Donald Sherman, the group’s executive vice president and chief counsel, said that in Colorado, CREW brought the case in the right place at the right time.

The lawsuits, filed by a variety of plaintiffs and legal groups, all focus on a little-used clause of the 14th Amendment that dates back to the Civil War era, and disqualifies from office anyone who engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States.