West
Supreme Court prepares hearing on Trump removal from Colorado ballot
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon debate whether former President Donald Trump should be removed from Colorado’s primary ballot, the first of what could be several legal challenges by Trump to confront the nine justices.
At issue is whether Trump committed “insurrection” by inciting a crowd to storm the U.S. Capitol Jan. 6, 2021, and whether that would make him constitutionally ineligible to be re-elected president. That, in turn, could block him from appearing on a state primary ballot as a candidate for that office.
Oral arguments are scheduled for Thursday at 10 a.m. ET, and an expedited ruling could come within days or weeks.
The issues have never been tested at the nation’s highest court and are framed as both a constitutional and political fight with enormous stakes for public confidence in the judicial system and the already divisive electoral process.
TRUMP ASKS SUPREME COURT TO KEEP NAME ON COLORADO BALLOT
The U.S. Supreme Court will be listening to oral arguments on whether Trump committed “insurrection” Jan. 6, 2021, and whether that disqualifies him constitutionally from being re-elected president. (Michael M. Santiago)
The wording
The 14th Amendment, Section 3 of the Constitution states, “No person shall… hold any office… under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States… to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
Colorado’s highest court in December ruled that clause covers Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, and therefore does apply to a president despite not being explicitly indicated in the text.
“President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president,” the state court wrote in an unsigned opinion. “Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the election code for the secretary to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.”
SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE IF TRUMP BANNED FROM COLORADO BALLOT IN HISTORIC CASE
The issue could turn on whether the high court interprets “officer of the United States” to apply to a president’s conduct in office.
The arguments
Trump’s legal team in its merits brief said, “The [Supreme] Court should put a swift and decisive end to these ballot-disqualification efforts, which threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans and which promise to unleash chaos and bedlam if other state courts and state officials follow Colorado’s lead and exclude the likely Republican presidential nominee from their ballots.”
The Constitution treats the presidency separately from other federal officers, Trump’s team argued.
The U.S. Supreme Court is prepping to debate whether Trump should be removed from Colorado’s primary ballot ahead of the 2024 presidential election. (Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images)
“The president swears a different oath set forth in Article II, in which he promises to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States’ — and in which the word ‘support’ is nowhere to be found,” like it appears in Section 3, Trump’s team wrote.
But lawyers for the Colorado voters challenging Trump’s eligibility said in response, “The thrust of Trump’s position is less legal than it is political. He not-so-subtly threatens ‘bedlam’ if he is not on the ballot. But we already saw the ‘bedlam’ Trump unleashed when he was on the ballot and lost. Section 3 is designed precisely to avoid giving oath-breaking insurrectionists like Trump the power to unleash such mayhem again.
“Nobody, not even a former President, is above the law,” the brief added, comparing Trump to a “mob boss.”
Also at issue:
TRUMP BACKED BY 27 STATES IN SUPREME COURT FIGHT, WHO WARN OF 2024 ‘CHAOS’ IF HE’S REMOVED FROM BALLOT
– Whether state courts or elected state officials can unilaterally enforce constitutional provisions and declare candidates ineligible for federal office — so-called “self-executing” authority — or is that exclusively the jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress. Also, whether Trump can be disqualified without a thorough fact-finding or criminal trial.
– Whether this issue is a purely “political” one that voters should ultimately decide.
– Whether the U.S. Senate’s acquittal at his impeachment trial over Jan. 6 makes him therefore eligible to seek re-election.
– And whether Section 3 prohibits individuals only from “holding” office, not from “seeking or winning” election to office.
The impact
More than a dozen states have pending legal challenges over Trump’s ballot eligibility.
At least 16 state courts and secretaries of state have already concluded his name can appear on the ballot. Colorado and Maine are the only two so far to keep his name off.
Many states have backed the former president, and at least 16 state courts and secretaries of state have allowed his name to appear on the ballot. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Other states are saying stay tuned. The Oregon Supreme Court earlier this year dismissed a related lawsuit but told a coalition of voters that, based on what the U.S. Supreme Court decides, they can refile again.
In conducting what are expected to be lengthy and contentious oral arguments, the justices will likely be forced to revisit the events of Jan. 6 and the pivotal speech Trump gave to supporters just before Congress was to certify the Electoral College ballots.
Trump has repeatedly claimed he was not trying to incite violence and that his speech was protected by First Amendment guarantees, especially pertinent as the top federal office holder.
The storming of the U.S. Capitol left 140 law enforcement officers injured, and lawmakers and Vice President Pence fled a mob that breached the building.
The Colorado decision has been on pause pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s final ruling.
MAINE’S TOP COURT WON’T RULE ON TRUMP BALLOT ELIGIBILITY UNTIL SUPREME COURT DECISION IN COLORADO
The state’s 2024 presidential primary ballot with Trump’s name on the Republican ballot has already been certified by the Colorado secretary of state.
But if Trump is ultimately declared ineligible for public office before the state’s March 5 primary, any votes cast in his favor would be nullified.
The Supreme Court has traditionally been reluctant to get involved in overtly political disputes, especially involving elections.
The partisan blowback over the 2000 ruling in Bush v. Gore still resonates, creating the impression among the public that many of the justices harbor partisan political intentions.
“Sometimes the Supreme Court has no choice but to be involved in the election cases because that is an area where, unlike most, the Supreme Court doesn’t even have discretion over whether it takes the case,” said Brianne Gorod, chief counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center.
“There are some voting rights and election cases that the Supreme Court is required to resolve on the merits.”
Arguments for the Colorado ballot case will be heard Thursday, Feb. 8, at 10 a.m. ET. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)
And beyond …
It is important to note the legal debate over “insurrection” comes to the Supreme Court on a ballot eligibility question.
Special counsel Jack Smith is separately prosecuting Trump for alleged election interference leading up to the Jan. 6 riot, but the former president is not charged specifically with “insurrection” or “rebellion.” The four charges he faces relate to conspiracy and obstruction. Some legal scholars have pointed out Section 3 does not require a criminal conviction to take effect.
The Supreme Court could soon be asked to decide an important component of Smith’s federal case — whether Trump has “absolute immunity” for alleged crimes committed in office.
A federal appeals court is considering the question, and the issue could soon reach the high court on an expedited basis.
Trump’s criminal trial was scheduled for March 4, 2024, but it is likely any Supreme Court consideration of the issues would force a delay, perhaps past the November election.
The former president also faces a state criminal prosecution for alleged election interference in Georgia; a federal criminal prosecution in Florida for alleged mishandling of classified documents that is also led by the special counsel; and a New York state criminal case over allegedly falsifying business records for hush money payments to a porn star.
Pro-Trump protesters rally at the U.S. Capitol in Washington Jan. 6, 2021. Trump faces four charges under special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution for election interference leading up to the Jan. 6 riot. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
And there are various civil claims against Trump, from lawsuits: by U.S. Capitol police officers over Jan. 6; alleged fraud involving various Trump-related businesses; and an $83 million defamation judgment stemming from an alleged sexual assault.
It is unclear if any of these cases will eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal on the merits. Some may not be considered for years.
In the short term, any further petition with the name “Trump” on the cover could severely strain public confidence in a judicial institution designed to hover above partisan politics.
“I don’t think that the court really follows the political calendar,” said Thomas Dupree, a former top Justice Department attorney in the George W. Bush administration. “I think they’re aware of the fact, obviously, that we’re in an election year, but I don’t think the fact that we’re in an election year is going to be driving the outcomes of any of these decisions.”
The ballot case is Trump v. Anderson (23-719).
Read the full article from Here
San Francisco, CA
S.F. hospital stabbing analysis confirms Mission Local reporting on security lapses
A 13-page assessment released today by the San Francisco Department of Public Health confirms Mission Local reporting last month that protocol failures contributed to a social worker’s fatal stabbing in December, and that hospital workers, not a sheriff’s deputy, were first to intervene in the attack.
The DPH has hired four additional staff members to its security team to ensure around the clock threat management coverage, and committed an additional $15 million a year to “support a fundamentally strengthened and modernized approach to safety and security” across its facilities.
After a period of increasingly threatening behavior toward his doctor at General Hospital’s Ward 86 HIV clinic, Wilfredo Tortolero Arriechi, 35, arrived on Dec. 4 and was intercepted by his social worker, Alberto Rangel. He stabbed Rangel, 51, to death in the hallway.
According to today’s report, the DPH immediately took action: installing a weapons detection system at Buildings 80-90 where the attack occurred, launching a 24/7 threat management team to triage and respond to concerns and establishing a formal threat escalation protocol which “balances safety measures with trauma-informed, patient-centered approaches.”
The report also identified a need for better processes to respond to emergencies that occur within the DPH system. Although Rangel was stabbed at Ward 86, a clinic on the grounds of San Francisco General Hospital, and witnesses on the scene called 911 immediately, EMS workers did not arrive to take over Rangel’s care until 11 minutes after his stabbing. A full 26 minutes elapsed between the 911 call and Rangel’s arrival in the emergency room, only a block away.
Today’s report also confirmed Mission Local reporting that a Ward 86 employee first intervened in the attack on Dec. 4 — a direct contradiction to claims from the sheriff’s union that a sheriff’s deputy assigned to the site had “saved Ward 86 from a rapid mass casualty stabbing.”
The deputy had been assigned to the area that day after Tortolero Arriechi had made threats against his doctor, who worked there. According to today’s report, the doctor was in a different hallway at the time of the stabbing.
Hospital staff had repeatedly raised alarm bells with DPH security specifically about Tortolero Arriechi’s threatening behavior, but today’s assessment confirmed that no additional safety measures were taken until the day of the incident.
Mission Local reported that Tortolero Arriechi posted increasingly erratic messages on his social media in the weeks leading up to the stabbing, including a photo of his doctor’s note pinned to a wall with a knife.
The DPH assessment includes a timeline, which shows that Tortolero Arriechi had to be escorted out of City Clinic in SoMa as early as Nov. 13 after he appeared seeking out his Ward 86 doctor, who also worked there.
A week later, on Nov. 20 and 21, Tortolero Arriechi exhibited “elevated behaviors” at an appointment with the doctor, who reported his behavior to DPH security. The next week, between Nov. 24 and 26, security “attempted multiple times” to reach Tortolero Arriechi by phone, with no success. Security leadership at General Hospital “discussed” the case, but apparently took no further action.
On Dec. 4, the morning of the stabbing, Tortolero Arriechi went to both the City Clinic and Ward 86.
The doctor again reported to security that Tortolero Arriechi was seeking him out at City Clinic, and that Tortolero Arriechi had allegedly insisted that he would return daily until he could see the doctor. According to the report, DPH security then assigned a “safety ambassador” to the clinic.
That same morning at Ward 86, staff contacted DPH head of security, Basil Price, and informed him that Tortolero Arriechi had once again shown up at the clinic looking for the doctor, and told them that he would be returning that afternoon.
The DPH requested a “criminal history check” by the sheriff’s department that day, which surfaced no warrants for Tortolero Arriechi. After a sheriff’s lieutenant conducted a “threat assessment” on the situation, the sheriff’s department assigned a deputy to be “posted at Ward 86.” Staff at Ward 86 interviewed by Mission Local were under the impression that the deputy was keeping an eye out for Tortolero Arriechi, but the DPH report confirms the sheriff’s department’s assertion that the deputy was directed only to station near the specific physician that Tortolero Arriechi had threatened.
Later in the afternoon of Dec. 4, 2025, Tortolero Arriechi again went to Ward 86 looking for the doctor, where he was directed to speak with his social worker, Rangel. Moments later, Tortolero Arriechi stabbed Rangel, who later died despite efforts by his colleagues to resuscitate him.
Tortolero Arriechi is currently facing murder charges, and his public defender has said that he was suffering a mental health crisis.
“No actions can undo the events of December 4, 2025,” the report said. “However, through an expertly informed re-evaluation of our current safety and security measures, we can ensure an improved approach to workplace safety and security going forward.”
Ward 86 employee Alex Alvarez said he was frustrated at the lack of funding for mental health care and support for traumatized employees who have not yet returned to work.
Due to the lack of protocols in place, he said, “we have to create this whole ecosystem of services, of safety protocols … why do the employees have to pay for this? Why do employees have to take the brunt of this lack of action?”
over at Bleeding Green Nation. During the off-season, he’s been writing his mock
draft blog and just wrote up–a rather lengthy–mock pick for the Seahawks at
#32.
Personally, not enamored with the pick, but he does a VERY deep dive into the
offensive and defensive makeup of the Hawks, trying…
-
Health29 seconds agoRed hair may be increasing as study points to surprising evolution trend
-
Sports7 minutes agoTrump envoy asks FIFA to replace Iran with Italy in 2026 World Cup: report
-
Technology13 minutes agoBooking.com data breach exposes traveler data to scams
-
Business18 minutes agoAngry Altadena residents ask officials to halt Edison’s undergrounding work
-
Entertainment24 minutes ago‘Clayface’ trailer teases DC Studios’ first proper horror movie
-
Lifestyle30 minutes agoShe built a following of plus-size customers. Why is she closing her L.A. resale shop?
-
Politics36 minutes agoAs primary election nears, top candidates for California governor debate tonight
-
Science42 minutes ago44% of Americans breathe dangerously polluted air. In California, it’s 82%