Politics
Supreme Court appears wary of blocking Trump from Colorado ballot
The Supreme Court justices gave a favorable hearing to former President Trump on Thursday, suggesting they will clear the way for him to seek election this year despite the mob attack on the Capitol that followed his loss in 2020.
The justices, both conservative and liberal, said they were skeptical of giving individual states the constitutional authority to disqualify candidates for a national office like the presidency.
“Why should a single state make this determination for the rest of the nation?” Justice Elena Kagan said. “It sounds awfully national.”
“It just doesn’t seem like a state call,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett added.
In December, the Colorado Supreme Court became the first and so far only state or federal court to rule that Trump must be removed from the primary ballot because he is not qualified to hold office again.
By a 4-3 vote, the state judges said Trump had violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which says no person may “hold any office, civil or military” after having taken an oath to support the Constitution and later “engaged in insurrection” against the United States.
“We are here because, for the first time since the War of 1812, our nation’s Capitol came under violent assault. For the first time in history, the attack was incited by a sitting president of the United States to disrupt the peaceful transfer of presidential power,” said Denver attorney Jason Murray, who represented the Colorado voters who sued to disqualify Trump.
But he quickly ran into steadily skeptical questions from the justices. They spent little time on whether Trump’s actions leading up to Jan. 6 amounted to engaging in an insurrection.
Instead, they took turns disputing the notion that state judges in Colorado or elsewhere may decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the 14th Amendment was adopted by the Reconstruction Congress to limit the authority of the states. “Wouldn’t that be the last place that you’d look for authorization for the states, including the Confederate states, to enforce the presidential election process?” he asked.
He predicted that if the high court were to endorse the Colorado ruling, other states “in very quick order” would make their own decisions on who can run for president, and some of them may seek to disqualify Democrats.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh repeatedly cited an 1869 decision holding that Congress had to pass a law to enforce the 14th Amendment’s disqualification rule. It was not up to each state, he said.
He also noted that while federal law makes it a crime to “incite an insurrection,” Trump had not been charged under that law.
The tenor of Thursday’s argument suggests a solid majority of the court, and perhaps all nine justices, will rule for Trump and reverse the Colorado court’s decision.
Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor sounded as though she may vote against Trump.
The court with Roberts taking the lead is likely to turn out an opinion in a few weeks. March is the prime time for primary elections in much of the nation.
By next week, however, the justices will have before them another Trump appeal that could decide whether he goes on trial this spring for the Jan. 6 attack.
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected Trump’s claim that former presidents are immune from being prosecuted for their actions while in office. The appellate judges said they would keep the criminal case on hold until the Supreme Court decides whether to hear Trump’s appeal of that ruling.
If the justices quickly reject Trump’s appeal, his trial may be scheduled to begin in April or May. But if the justices decide to hear the appeal, the trial is likely to be postponed until late summer or fall.
Leading up to Thursday’s argument, some legal experts portrayed the disqualification issue as a test of the conservative court’s devotion to originalism.
Legal scholars and historians told the justices in friend-of-the-court briefs that the words and history of the 14th Amendment call for disqualifying Trump. They said the members of the Reconstruction Congress were determined to prevent insurrectionists from gaining power and subverting American democracy.
But the six conservatives are also GOP appointees, and Trump’s lawyers said it would be anti-democratic to remove the Republican presidential front-runner from the ballot.
And that argument appeared to resonate with most of the justices, including its three Democratic appointees.
The former president is “the presumptive Republican nominee and the leading candidate for president of the United States,” Trump’s lawyers said in their closing brief filed on Monday. “The American people — not courts or election officials — should choose the next president of the United States. Yet at a time when the United States is threatening sanctions against the socialist dictatorship in Venezuela for excluding the leading opposition candidate for president from the ballot … [the Colorado lawsuit] asks this court to impose that same anti-democratic measure at home.”
Much of Thursday’s argument was devoted to procedural and technical objections to the Colorado ruling.
In his legal argument for Trump, Texas attorney Jonathan Mitchell said the president is not “an officer of the United States” and is therefore not covered by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. He said that officers are appointed, not elected, and that the 14th Amendment does not mention the president or vice president.
Many historians and legal scholars call this claim absurd.
It would mean the Reconstruction Congress sought to block former Confederates from holding “any office” across the nation except the presidency.
But by the argument’s end, it appeared the justices will decide the case without ruling on whether the former president was covered by the 14th Amendment or whether he led an insurrection before leaving office.
Politics
Video: U.S. ‘Accelerating’ Military Assault in Iran, Hegseth Says
new video loaded: U.S. ‘Accelerating’ Military Assault in Iran, Hegseth Says
By Christina Kelso
March 4, 2026
Politics
US submarine sinks Iranian warship by torpedo in a first since World War II
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A U.S. submarine sank a prized Iranian warship by torpedo, the first such sinking of an enemy ship since World War II, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said Wednesday morning.
Hegseth joined Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine at the Pentagon to provide an update to reporters on “Operation Epic Fury” in Iran.
“An American submarine sunk an Iranian warship that thought it was safe in international waters,” Hegseth said. “Instead, it was sunk by a torpedo. Quiet death. The first sinking of an enemy ship by a torpedo since World War Two. Like in that war, back when we were still the War Department. We are fighting to win.”
Caine said that an Iranian vessel was “effectively neutralized” in a Navy “fast attack” using a single Mark 48 torpedo. He added that the U.S. Navy achieved “immediate effect, sending the warship to the bottom of the sea.”
WATCH HEGSETH’S ANNOUNCEMENT:
Hegseth said that the U.S. Navy sank the Iranian warship, the Soleimani. The flagship was named for Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian military officer who served in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps who the U.S. killed in a January 2020 drone strike during President Donald Trump’s first term.
“The Iranian Navy rests at the bottom of the Persian Gulf. Combat ineffective, decimated, destroyed, defeated. Pick your adjective,” Hegseth said. “In fact, last night we sunk their prize ship, the Soleimani. Looks like POTUS got him twice. Their navy, not a factor. Pick your adjective. It is no more.”
This map shows U.S. and Israeli strikes against Iranian naval forces as of March 1. (Fox News)
Hegseth also told reporters at the briefing that the U.S. and Israel will soon achieve “complete control” over Iranian airspace after Iran’s missile capabilities were drastically diminished in the four days of fighting.
US ‘WINNING DECISIVELY’ AGAINST IRAN, WILL ACHIEVE ‘COMPLETE CONTROL’ OF AIRSPACE WITHIN DAYS, HEGSETH SAYS
“More bombers and more fighters are arriving just today and now, with complete control of the skies, we will be using 500 pound, one thousand pound and 2,000 pound laser-guided precision gravity bombs, of which we have a nearly unlimited stockpile,” he said.
The war has killed more than 1,000 people in Iran and dozens in Lebanon, while U.S. officials said six American troops were killed in a fatal drone strike in Kuwait.
Thousands of travelers have been left stranded across the Middle East.
This map shows security and travel updates for Americans regarding countries in the Middle East region. (Fox News)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Caine told reporters that the U.S. military is helping thousands of Americans stranded in the Middle East after the U.S. State Department urged citizens to leave more than a dozen countries.
Fox News Digital’s Ashley Carnahan contributed to this report.
Politics
Sen. Padilla preps for Trump trying to seize control of elections via emergency order
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) is preparing for President Trump to declare a national emergency in order to seize control of this year’s midterm elections from the states, including by bracing his Senate colleagues for a vote in which they would be forced to either co-sign on the power grab or resist it.
In the wake of reporting last week that conservative activists with connections to the White House were circulating such an order, Padilla sent a letter to his Senate colleagues Friday stating that any such order would be “wildly illegal and unconstitutional,” and would no doubt face “extremely strict scrutiny” in the courts.
“Nevertheless, if the President does escalate his unprecedented assault on our democracy by declaring an election-related emergency, I will swiftly introduce a privileged resolution [and] force a vote in the Senate to terminate the fake emergency,” wrote Padilla, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
Padilla wrote that such an order — which could possibly “include banning mail-in voting, eliminating major voting registration methods, voter purges, and/or new document barriers for registering to vote and voting” — would clearly go beyond Trump’s authority.
“Put simply, no President has the power under the Constitution or any law to take over elections, and no declaration or order can create one out of thin air,” Padilla wrote.
The same day Padilla sent his letter, Trump was asked whether he was considering declaring a national emergency around the midterms. “Who told you that?” he asked — before saying he was not considering such an order.
The White House referred The Times to that exchange when asked Tuesday for comment on Padilla’s letter.
If Trump did declare such an emergency, a “privileged resolution,” as Padilla proposed, would require the full Senate to vote on the record on whether or not to terminate it — forcing any Senate allies of the president to own the policy politically, along with him.
Experts say there is no evidence that U.S. elections are significantly affected or swung by widespread fraud or foreign interference, despite robust efforts by Trump and his allies for years to find it.
Nonetheless, Trump has been emphatic that such fraud is occurring, particularly in blue states such as California that allow for mail-in ballots and do not have strict voter ID laws. He and others in his administration have asserted, again without evidence, that large numbers of noncitizen residents are casting votes and that others are “harvesting” ballots out of the mail and filling them out in bulk.
Soon after taking office, Trump issued an executive order purporting to require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship before registering and barring the counting of mail-in ballots received after election day, but it was largely blocked by the courts.
Trump’s loyalist Justice Department sued red and blue states across the country for their full voter rolls, but those efforts also have largely been blocked, including in California. The FBI also raided an elections office in Georgia that has been the focus of Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him.
Trump is also pushing for the passage of the SAVE Act, a voter ID bill passed by the House, but it has stalled in the Senate.
In recent weeks, Trump has expressed frustration that his demands around voting security have not translated into changes in blue state policies ahead of the upcoming midterm elections, where his shrinking approval could translate into major gains for Democrats.
Last month, Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform, “I have searched the depths of Legal Arguments not yet articulated or vetted on this subject, and will be presenting an irrefutable one in the very near future. There will be Voter I.D. for the Midterm Elections, whether approved by Congress or not!”
Then, last week, the Washington Post reported that a draft executive order being circulated by activists with ties to Trump suggests that unproven claims of Chinese interference in the 2020 election could be used as a pretext to declare an elections emergency granting Trump sweeping authority to unilaterally institute the changes he wants to see in state-run elections.
Election experts said the Constitution is clear that states control and run elections, not with the executive branch.
Democrats have widely denounced any federal takeover of elections by Trump. And some Republicans have expressed similar concerns, including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who chairs the Senate rules committee.
In the Wall Street Journal last year, McConnell warned against Trump or any Republican president asserting sweeping authority to control elections, in part because Democrats would then be empowered to claim similar authority if and when they retake power.
McConnell’s office referred The Times to that Journal opinion piece when asked about the circulating emergency order and Padilla’s resolution.
Padilla’s office said his resolution would be introduced in response to an emergency declaration by Trump, but hoped it wouldn’t be necessary.
“Instead of trying to evade accountability at the ballot box,” Padilla wrote, “the President should focus on the needs of Americans struggling to pay for groceries, health care, housing and other everyday needs and put these illegal and unconstitutional election orders in the trash can where they belong.”
-
World7 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts7 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Denver, CO7 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Louisiana1 week agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Florida3 days agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Oregon5 days ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling
-
Maryland3 days agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Wisconsin3 days agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin