There are some other challenges to the candidacy of Donald Trump

The U.S. Supreme Court Will Decide What We Can (Or Can) Do About Abortion Right Now — Critique of the Trump v. Wade Decision

Patients can obtain prescriptions through doctor’s appointments online and mail order, thanks to the Food and Drug Administration. Medication abortions are now the most widely used abortion method.

Abortion rights have already become a motivating issue for voters and a major topic on the campaign trail, sparked largely by the court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in June 2022. The court will have more to say about abortion in the future.

A decision by the court could take many different forms. It could uphold the Colorado court’s decision to declare Trump ineligible, or overturn it. It can limit the decision to Colorado or apply it to the whole country. It could issue an expedited opinion in a matter of days, or deliberate until June or July, long after many states hold primaries.

Trump has vowed to appeal the “completely flawed” decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Steven Cheung, a spokesman for the Trump campaign, said they have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in their favor.

The majority 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 conscious of our duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and with no public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.

Judicial assault on the 2024 congressman: The role of the Supreme Court in his fight against political narco-police

Legal challenges to Donald Trump’s eligibility on the 2024 Republican primary ballots are underway in more than a dozen states. Each seeks the same result as this week’s historic decision by the Colorado Supreme Court: to disqualify the former president from that state’s ballot.

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. The corporate fraud statute that the Justice Department charged him under was usually reserved for people who make a mistake in a document, according to Fischer.

Not a former president is above the law, according to special counsel Jack Smith. Judge Chutkan ruled earlier this month that Trump is not entitled to a get-out-of-jail-free pass. Prosecutors asked the Supreme Court to step in and decide once and for all — an apparent effort to try to preserve a March 2024 trial date, or at least an attempt to ensure Trump faces trial in Washington, D.C., before the next election.

The issue has never been heard by the Supreme Court. Until Trump, who’s fighting 91 felony charges across four U.S. jurisdictions, no president has been charged with a crime.

The argument was made to defend Trump against conspiracy charges stemming from his efforts to cling to power in 2020. His lawyers say he’s entitled to absolute immunity — a complete shield — from federal criminal prosecution, because he was president at the time.

The court’s decision to overturn a landmark abortion case last term caused public confidence in the court to plummet. The amount of issues related to Trump could prompt even more scrutiny.

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.

It will be easy in the 2024 election. He thought that knowing what the fundamental rules were the better off.

Guy- Uriel Charles, a Harvard law professor who specializes in election law, said that the court should resolve this asap regardless of how the justices proceed.

For the first time, state supreme court ruled on those questions. And we think it’s applicable to these other states,” Bonifaz said.

The lawsuits have the same legal questions like whether the 14th Amendment applies to the president and whether courts can enforce it without congressional legislation.

The Colorado Supreme Court Case: The Case for a Demonstration of Donald Trump’s 2021 Attack on the U.S. Capitol

John Bonifaz, an attorney and co-founding president of Free Speech For People said the Colorado decision will have a major impact on the group’s other challenges.

Two other notable suits are taking place in Oregon and Michigan. The supreme courts are currently considering cases brought by Free Speech For People. The Minnesota court said that political parties have the right to put ineligible candidates on their primary ballots, which was dismissed by the group. The group plans to file more challenges in the future.

In other states, judges might find the Colorado lower court’s finding relevant as well.

In Colorado, CREW “brought the right case in the right place at the right time in order to prevail on the merits,” said Donald Sherman, the group’s executive vice president and chief counsel.

They contend that the attack on the U.S. Capitol in January of 2021 was an insurrection due to Trump’s actions.

The 14th Amendment, a clause that was used during the Civil War era and disqualifies anyone who attempts to “insurrection or rebellion against the United States”, has been the focus of a number of lawsuits.

I would love to live in a place where Americans had never elected a demagogue such as Mr. Trump, and where the millions of people who voted for him did so because he did nothing wrong. Nobody lives in America. The Supreme Court can’t bring that fantasy into being because it has arrogated power. The right way of showing Mr. Trump to the exits of the political system would be to allow him to run for president.

Part of the danger lies in the fact that what actually happened on Jan. 6 — and especially Mr. Trump’s exact role beyond months of election denial and entreaties to government officials to side with him — is still too broadly contested. In Colorado, the facts were deferred to a lower court, but the jury never got to look at what happened. Many Americans still believe in Mr. Trump, even though no jury ever assessed what happened. If the Colorado ruling is upheld, a Supreme Court must be able to create a consensual narrative where others have failed.