Politics
Column: The Supreme Court has 6 options for keeping Trump on the ballot. All of them are flawed
I recently surmised that in considering former President Trump’s eligibility to run for office under the 14th Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court will seek a national solution that applies to all 50 states. That dictates a reversal of the Colorado Supreme Court’s disqualification of Trump for engaging in insurrection, on grounds that preclude other states from following suit.
This case is among the rare instances in which the court probably should factor broad social and political issues into its opinion. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. will be looking for a rationale that can command the greatest possible consensus and minimize the fallout from a divided decision.
So what are the court’s options for overturning Colorado? I count six possible grounds, each of them flawed to one degree or another.
Trump did not engage in insurrection: The court could differ with the Colorado court on this point in two ways.
First, it could find that Trump’s role in the events of Jan. 6, 2021, did not constitute incitement of imminent lawlessness and was therefore protected by the 1st Amendment. Trump argues that his “only explicit instructions called for protesting ‘peacefully and patriotically’” and other bland encouragements. But it’s virtually inconceivable to me that the court would side with Trump on this dubious characterization of events in the absence of a developed factual record.
Alternatively, the court could agree with Trump’s argument that the definition of “insurrection” under the 14th Amendment should be limited to a conflict such as the Civil War, in keeping with the provision’s historical context. By contrast, Jan. 6 was just a political protest that “turned violent,” his lawyers argue.
Adopting this line would drastically narrow the reach of Section 3 of the amendment, leaving it close to a constitutional nullity. Further, it would contradict not just the Colorado courts’ persuasive analysis but also historical practice. The courts and Congress have disqualified federal officials based on much less, among them Victor Berger, whom Congress refused to seat based on his socialist and anti-World War I views.
The justices lack sufficient standards for applying the amendment: Trump’s lead argument is that without a statute passed by Congress to provide guidance on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, “courts lack judicially manageable standards for resolving disputes over presidential qualifications.” This implicitly invokes the Supreme Court’s rationale for taking itself out of the business of checking extreme partisan gerrymandering.
One problem with this argument is that there is nothing inscrutable about the ban on insurrectionists. Courts determine issues of similar complexity all the time.
Second, the constraint invoked is one the Supreme Court adopted for itself; it doesn’t prevent state courts from acting. The Supreme Court would thereby abandon the field and allow the states to step into the breach, an outcome it’s unlikely to welcome.
The section requires congressional authorization: This claim is subtly but importantly different from the previous one. It’s that Section 3 is not “self-executing” but rather requires congressional action to be applied by any court, which would be in keeping with prevalent historical practice.
But it’s well-established that the powerhouse equal protection and due process provisions in Section 1 of the same amendment have great force without regard to congressional action. It’s hard to see how that principle could stand if the court found that Section 3 has no such force on its own. This argument could also encourage a future Democratic Congress to disqualify Trump from holding office.
The amendment prohibits holding office, not running for office: It is uncontroversial that Section 3 imposes a qualification for holding office, much like an age, residency or citizenship requirement. But a state certainly can prevent an unqualified candidate — for example, one who will not be 35 years old at the time she would assume the presidency — from seeking an office.
The Colorado courts were out of step with state law: This invokes a widely discredited theory that first emerged in Bush vs. Gore: that the Constitution’s electors clause allows the federal courts to reverse state court rulings that significantly depart from the dictates of state law. This questionable approach would alienate the court’s progressives. Moreover, there is no plausible suggestion that the Colorado Supreme Court significantly departed from the requirements of state law.
The president is not a federal “officer” under the amendment: The Colorado trial court seized on this reading to back away from the precipice of disqualifying Trump. But it has problems as a matter of textual interpretation and sensible policy. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and Maine’s secretary of state exposed its weaknesses.
That sums up the Supreme Court’s unenviable hand, which doesn’t contain as much as a face card, let alone an ace. The reasoning that does the least damage to other areas of the law and is most tailored to the current case may well be that the president is not an officer. The other least implausible option, notwithstanding the tension with the first section of the 14th Amendment, would be to require congressional action to effectuate Section 3.
Neither is particularly convincing, and the other possibilities are less so. And yet if the court is to impose a uniform federal solution keeping Trump on the ballot in all 50 states, it’s clear that it will have to settle on some deeply imperfect rationale.
Harry Litman is the host of the “Talking Feds” podcast. @harrylitman
The United States and Iran traded missile fire and accusations on Thursday as tensions in the Strait of Hormuz ratcheted up, threatening an already fragile cease-fire.
U.S. Central Command said that American forces had “intercepted unprovoked Iranian attacks and responded with self-defense strikes” while U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyers were traversing the strait to the Gulf of Oman on Thursday.
In a statement, Central Command said Iranian forces launched multiple missiles, drones and small-boat attacks as three U.S. warships were transiting the strait. None of the American naval vessels were hit, Central Command said.
The U.S. vessels that were traversing the strait were the U.S.S. Truxtun, the U.S.S. Rafael Peralta and the U.S.S. Mason. The warships had steamed into the Persian Gulf earlier in the week as part of the Navy’s short-lived effort to guide merchant ships stranded in the Persian Gulf through the strait.
In response, U.S. forces struck targets on Qeshm Island and Bandar Abbas along the Iranian coast in the strait, U.S. officials said.
It was the latest twist in a head-spinning week in the region, as President Trump, searching for an off-ramp in the war that he started Feb. 28, has contradicted his senior administration officials on the state of the war, the state of American efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and the status of peace talks with Iran.
After the exchange of fire on Thursday, the president said the cease-fire was still in effect and downplayed the Iranian attacks.
“They trifled with us today,” Mr. Trump told reporters late Thursday. “We blew them away.”
The president added, however, that Iran needed to sign on “fast” to a proposal from the United States that would have both sides reach an agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and refrain from fighting for 30 days while they try to reach a comprehensive deal.
Even as the president and senior officials described peace negotiations that they said were advancing, Central Command has forcefully hit Iranian vessels that it says have violated an American-imposed blockade of the strait.
Central Command “eliminated inbound threats and targeted Iranian military facilities responsible for attacking U.S. forces, including missile and drone launch sites; command and control locations; and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance nodes,” the command’s Thursday statement said. It added that Central Command “does not seek escalation but remains positioned and ready to protect American forces.”
Iran, for its part, accused the United States of launching “unprovoked” attacks as the U.S. ships traversed the strait.
In a statement carried by state media, Iran’s armed forces said the U.S. military had violated the month-old cease-fire by carrying out airstrikes on Qeshm Island and two other cities on the country’s southern coast. Central Command said the ship attacks had emanated from those sites.
When asked if the U.S. response to the Iranian drone, missile and small-boat attacks went beyond self-defense, a senior U.S. military official said that an effective defense sometimes involves a carefully calibrated offense.
Erica L. Green contributed reporting.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump praised White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles as “winning it decisively” in her battle with cancer after she revealed she was diagnosed nine weeks ago while accepting a major award Thursday night.
“It’s been especially inspiring to see her courage and toughness in recent weeks, and she’s been winning a battle with cancer and winning it decisively,” Trump said in a pre-recorded video message. “It was an early diagnosis, so she’s going to be in great shape.”
Wiles said during an onstage conversation that she would continue to work following the diagnosis.
“I come to work every day. I do my job, I don’t complain, and I think that sets an example, too, for the people I work with,” Wiles said.
WH CHIEF OF STAFF SUSIE WILES DIAGNOSED WITH EARLY STAGE BREAST CANCER, PROGNOSIS ‘EXCELLENT,’ TRUMP SAYS
President Donald Trump hosts a lunch with Kennedy Center Board members as Chief of Staff Susie Wiles looks on at the White House in Washington, D.C., on March 16, 2026. (Annabelle GORDON / AFP via Getty Images)
Trump surprised Wiles with the video as she accepted the Independent Women’s Forum Barbara K. Olson Woman of Valor Award at a gala in Washington, D.C.
He praised her as “the first female chief of staff in American history” and “one of the best White House chiefs of staff ever in history.”
“I say the best, actually,” Trump said, adding that he was “tremendously grateful” for her “friendship, loyalty and support every single day.”
TRUMP CHIEF OF STAFF PLEDGES NO ‘DRAMA’ OR SECOND-GUESSING IN WHITE HOUSE
White House chief of staff Susie Wiles listens as President Donald Trump announces the creation of the U.S. strategic critical minerals reserve in the Oval Office of the White House on Feb. 2, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Wiles said she did not know the video was intended for the gala, despite briefly walking in while Trump was recording it.
“I walked in when he was filming it, but I didn’t know what it was for, and I kind of ducked out the back door,” she said.
Trump credited Wiles with playing a key role in each of his presidential campaigns, “especially in 2024,” and said his administration’s accomplishments have come with “her help and her leadership.”
TRUMP CHIEF OF STAFF SUSIE WILES RECOUNTS BUTLER ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT, THOUGHT PRESIDENT WAS DEAD AT FIRST
President Donald Trump and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles participate in an Invest America roundtable in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on Monday, June 9, 2025. (Yuri Gripas/Abaca/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
“Susie, we have a problem. I say go to Susie,” Trump said. “We owe her a tremendous debt and what she’s done is just incredible for our country.”
Wiles, who described herself as a lifelong Republican, said her decision to back Trump in 2016 was one of the biggest risks of her career.
“I wanted a disrupter,” Wiles said. “I looked around at the disrupters in the field and said, I think Donald Trump’s the one.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Asked about her role now, Wiles said, “This is the path God chose for me. And I’m here, and I’m doing the best I can every day.”
The gala was held Thursday at the Waldorf Astoria in Washington, D.C.
Fox News Digital’s Ashley Carnahan and Alex Nitzberg contributed to this reporting.
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom said his administration is “moving forward aggressively” to continue laying the groundwork for a giant tunnel beneath the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to replumb the state’s water system.
“We got to move faster. Move faster,” Newsom said to regulators during a speech Thursday at a conference held by the Assn. of California Water Agencies. “We all have to be held to a higher level of accountability.”
California’s 40th governor provided a chronological look back at his water policies since taking office in 2019 and asserted the need to continue his effort to modernize state infrastructure to provide for cities and farms into the future.
Newsom cast the tunnel as a “climate adaptation project,” noting that climate change is projected to shrink the amount of water the state can deliver with its current infrastructure.
With his term expiring at the end of the year, Newsom acknowledged that he will soon “pass the baton” on water policy to the next governor. Democrat or Republican, that person could decide the fate of his signature water project.
“The Delta Conveyance, if we had it last year alone, would have provided enough water, in terms of what we could have captured with an updated system, enough water for 9.8 million Californians’ needs for over a year,” Newsom said. “We’ve got to get that done.”
Water has been a focus of the Newsom administration since his first day in office, when the governor took his cabinet to Monterey Park Tract, a rural Central Valley community that lacked access to safe drinking water.
Described by Newsom as “the forever problem” in California, water policy is also among the most politically contentious issues in the state.
The tunnel would create a second route to transport water from new intakes on the Sacramento River to the south side of the Delta, where pumps send water into the aqueducts of the State Water Project.
The project is particularly acrimonious, drawing out geographical battles between north and south and thorny fights between officials who want to build the tunnel and environmentalists and Delta residents seeking to protect the local ecosystem and their way of life.
Newsom and other supporters have said the tunnel would protect the state’s water system as climate change intensifies severe droughts and deluges. Opponents call the project a costly boondoggle, arguing it’s not necessary and would destroy the Delta.
It’s been mired with regulatory hurdles and other challenges for years.
The State Water Resources Control Board is considering a petition by the Newsom administration to amend permits so water could be tapped where the tunnel intakes would be built.
There have also been other complications. A state appeals court in December rejected the state’s plan for financing the project, and the California Supreme Court in April declined to take up the case. The state Department of Water Resources said it still plans to issue bonds to finance the project.
Other court challenges by Delta-area counties and environmental groups are also pending.
Whether the project is ultimately built may hinge on whether large water agencies, including the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, decide to participate and pay for its building.
State officials have said that the tunnel, called the Delta Conveyance Project, ultimately would be paid for by participating water agencies.
The state estimated in 2024 that the tunnel would cost $20.1 billion, while opponents say it could cost three to five times more than that.
In the last seven years, California has invested $11 billion in water infrastructure, Newsom said.
The Democratic governor reflected on other parts of his water policies, saying he has prioritized securing funds to provide clean drinking water to more communities where Californians live with contaminated tap water.
He said while there has been progress in bringing safe drinking water to more communities, there is still “a lot more work to be done.”
Newsom touted his administration’s investment in replenishing groundwater in the Central Valley and its efforts supporting plans to build the Sites Reservoir near Sacramento.
Newsom said the Sites Reservoir is critical for the state’s future, and he indicated some frustration about the pace at which it’s advancing.
“We’ve got to do the groundbreaking at Sites,” he said. “If you can’t agree to an off-stream investment in this world of weather whiplash, we’re as dumb as we want to be.”
He said his administration has also made progress on environmental projects including restoring wetlands around the shrinking Salton Sea, removing dams on the Klamath River, and developing a strategy to help salmon, which have suffered major declines in recent years.
Touching on issues that generate heated debate, Newsom talked about a controversial plan for new water rules in the Delta that relies on so-called voluntary agreements in which water agencies would contribute funding for wetland habitat restoration projects and other measures.
Newsom described the approach, called the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes program, as a solution to break away from the traditional conflict-ridden regulatory approach and improve the Delta’s ecological health.
“Got to maintain the vigilance on these voluntary agreements. At peril, we go back to our old ways,” he said.
Environmental advocates argue that the proposed approach, which is widely supported by water agencies, would take too much water out of the Delta and threaten native fish that are already in severe decline.
Newsom said climate change is increasingly driving “weather whiplash” in California and that the state must prepare. He noted that his tenure included the extreme drought from 2020-22, followed by extremely wet conditions in 2023, which revived Tulare Lake on thousands of acres of farmland.
He said the state needs to manage water differently because the effects of climate change have been apparent over the last several years: “The hots were getting a lot hotter, the dries were getting a lot drier, and the wets were getting a lot wetter.”
-
Illinois10 minutes agoIllinois fines multiple Springfield-area nursing homes
-
Indiana16 minutes agoRepublican primary voters sent dangerous message to America | Opinion
-
Iowa22 minutes agoHarkin backs Turek for Iowa Senate
-
Kansas28 minutes ago
Kansas Lottery Pick 3, 2 By 2 winning numbers for May 7, 2026
-
Kentucky34 minutes agoReal estate sales in Jefferson, Bullitt and Oldham counties, Oct. 20-26, 2025
-
Louisiana40 minutes agoBehind the Curtain: How Louisiana’s Parole System and Courts Shape Who Goes Free | The Lens
-
Maine46 minutes agoShenna Bellows will fight for Maine as governor | Opinion
-
Maryland52 minutes agoHow mighty megalodon rose from extinction to be Maryland state shark