Connect with us

Politics

Supreme Court rules Trump will stay on Colorado ballot despite Jan. 6 attack

Published

on

Supreme Court rules Trump will stay on Colorado ballot despite Jan. 6 attack

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that former President Trump may not be disqualified from appearing on state ballots despite allegations he “engaged in insurrection” after losing the 2020 election and thereby should be barred under the Constitution from holding office.

Reversing a ruling by Colorado judges, the high court said states do not have the authority to interpret the post-Civil War 14th Amendment or use it to remove a presidential candidate from the state ballot.

It was an unsigned, unanimous decision.

In December, the Colorado Supreme Court decided that Trump was disqualified from running for president because he violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It says no person may “hold any office, civil or military” who took an oath to support the Constitution and then engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States.

Advertisement

Legal scholars and historians told the court in friend-of-the-court briefs that the Reconstruction Congress sought to prevent “insurrectionists” from gaining power and subverting American democracy.

The justices did not dispute that reading of history, but they appeared more concerned about allowing state judges to remove from the ballot a candidate who is the overwhelming choice of Republican voters.

“Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the states, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse,’’ Monday’s ruling stated.

All nine justices said they agreed that Colorado or any state may not disqualify a presidential candidate based on the 14th Amendment.

But Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Amy Coney Barrett objected to part of the court’s opinion that said Congress must enact a law to enforce this provision in the 14th Amendment.

Advertisement

“Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oath-breaking insurrectionist from becoming president. Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision. Because we would decide only the issue before us, we concur only in the judgment,” the court’s three liberals wrote.

Barrett filed a similar concurrence.

“I agree that states lack the power to enforce Section 3 against presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this case, and I would decide no more than that. … In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the national temperature down, not up. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home. “

The court moved with uncommon speed to hear Trump’s appeal and to rule for him. His lawyers asked the court to review the Colorado case Jan. 3. Two days later, the appeal was granted, and arguments were held Feb. 8.

The justices ruled for Trump in less than a month and in time for his votes to be counted in Colorado’s primary election on Tuesday.

Advertisement

The court has moved less quickly to resolve Trump’s separate claim of presidential immunity from prosecution. As a result, the criminal trial over his role on Jan. 6 may not be held until after the November election.

Last week, the court announced it would hear Trump’s immunity claim, setting arguments for the week of April 22. Under that schedule, the justices are not likely to rule before June.

By then, it may be too late for the trial to be held before the November election.

The court’s Monday opinion does not discuss or decide whether Trump engaged in insurrection after losing the election in November 2020.

The lawyers who brought the suit in Colorado called that a victory of sorts.

Advertisement

“While the Supreme Court allowed Donald Trump back on the ballot on technical legal grounds, this was in no way a win for Trump. The Supreme Court had the opportunity in this case to exonerate Trump, and they chose not to do so,” said Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington or CREW.

Election law experts also noted the Colorado decision does not prevent members of Congress from objecting to Trump’s election if he wins in November.

“This decision does not resolve the contentious insurrection issues, which will remain live and disputed in the public domain in the months ahead,” said Derek Muller, a Notre Dame law professor. “But it shuts the door on any exclusion of Trump from the ballot in any state, either in the primary or the general.”

Advertisement

Politics

Republicans light cigars, cigarettes on burning photos of Khamenei to show support for Iranian protesters

Published

on

Republicans light cigars, cigarettes on burning photos of Khamenei to show support for Iranian protesters

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Republican lawmakers are jumping on a social media trend to show their support for the anti-regime protesters in Iran.

Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont., and Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., posted photos of themselves using burning photos of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to light up a cigarette and a cigar respectively. Both lawmakers used the caption “Smoke ’em if you got ’em.”

The lawmaker’s images mirror a social media trend in which people are using burning photos of Khamenei to light cigarettes and cigars. The trend emerged as the people of Iran hold increasingly intense protests against the Islamic regime. The movement against the regime has seen increasing support from abroad as world leaders back the people of Iran.

FREED IRANIAN PRISONER SAYS ‘IN TRUMP, THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC HAS MET ITS MATCH’

Advertisement

People gather during a protest on Jan. 8, 2026, in Tehran, Iran. (Anonymous/Getty Images)

Khamenei’s regime has started to crack down on protests and even instituted a sweeping internet blackout to try to quell the unrest. Some have posited that the internet blackout was also meant to impede the spreading of information about and visuals of abuses committed against protesters by regime-backed forces.

Recently, exiled Iranian crown prince Reza Pahlavi has publicly urged President Donald Trump and the U.S. to back protesters in Iran as they fight the decades-old regime.

Sheehy told Fox News Digital that he takes the issue personally, saying that Iran has participated in the torturing, kidnapping and killing of Americans across the globe, “including friends of mine.”

“The Iranian regime are a bunch of murderous b——- who have been chanting ‘death to America’ for the past 46 years. They have backed up this chant by kidnapping, torturing, and killing thousands of Americans all over the world, including friends of mine. For me, it’s personal; it’s time to take out the trash,” Sheehy said in a statement provided to Fox News Digital via email.

Advertisement

Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont., showed his solidarity with the people of Iran by hopping on a social media trend in which she used a burning photo of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to light a cigarette. (Courtesy of Sen. Tim Sheehy’s Office)

US HOSTAGES IN IRAN FACE HEIGHTENED RISK AS PROTESTS SPREAD, EXPERTS SAY NUMBER HELD MAY EXCEED ESTIMATES

The senator also expressed his solidarity with the people of Iran and encouraged them to keep fighting the regime.

“To the Iranian people — we applaud your courage, keep fighting, and know we fully support your brave efforts to topple this evil regime,” he added.

Tenney’s office also spoke with Fox News Digital about the congresswoman’s post, praising the bravery of the people of Iran for standing up to the regime. Additionally, Tenney’s office expressed the congresswoman’s solidarity with the Iranian people.

Advertisement

“The bravery of the Iranian people in the face of decades of oppression by a brutal, extremist regime is extraordinary. Men and women across Iran are risking their lives to stand up to authoritarian mullahs who have denied them basic freedoms for generations,” Tenney’s office said in a statement to Fox News Digital.

Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., showed her solidarity with the people of Iran by hopping on a social media trend in which she used a burning photo of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to light a cigar. (Courtesy of Rep. Claudia Tenney’s Office)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“The congresswoman stands firmly with the Iranian people and their demand for dignity and self-determination, and believes their courage must be recognized and amplified. Today, the Iranian people finally have an ally in the White House, President Trump, who has made clear that the United States stands with those fighting for freedom against tyranny,” Tenney’s office added.

Trump has been vocal about his support for the people of Iran and has warned that the U.S. would be ready to step in if the regime used violence against protesters.

Advertisement

“Iran is looking at FREEDOM, perhaps like never before,” the president wrote in a Truth Social post on Jan. 10. “The USA stands ready to help!!!”

Continue Reading

Politics

California launches investigation into child porn on Elon Musk’s AI site

Published

on

California launches investigation into child porn on Elon Musk’s AI site

California announced an investigation into Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI on Wednesday, with Gov. Gavin Newsom saying that the social media site owned by the billionaire is a “breeding ground for predators to spread nonconsenual sexually explicit AI deepfakes.”

Grok, the xAI chatbot, includes image-generation features that allow users to morph existing photos into new images. The newly created images are then posted publicly on X.

In some cases, users have created sexually explicit or nonconsensual images based on real people, including altered depictions that appear to show individuals partially or fully undressed. Others have generated images that appear to show minors, prompting criticism that there are not sufficient guardrails to prohibit the creation of child pornography.

The social media site has previously said “we take action against illegal content on X, including Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), by removing it, permanently suspending accounts, and working with local governments and law enforcement as necessary. Anyone using or prompting Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content.”

Newsom called the sexualized images being created on the platform “vile.” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said his office will use “all tools at our disposal to keep Californians safe.”

Advertisement

“The avalanche of reports detailing the non-consensual, sexually explicit material that xAI has produced and posted online in recent weeks is shocking,” Bonta said in a statement Wednesday. “This material, which depicts women and children in nude and sexually explicit situations, has been used to harass people across the internet. I urge xAI to take immediate action to ensure this goes no further. We have zero tolerance for the AI-based creation and dissemination of nonconsensual intimate images or of child sexual abuse material.”

Newsom signed a pair of bills in 2024 that made it illegal to create, possess or distribute sexually charged images of minors even when they’re created with computers, not cameras. The measures took effect last year.

Assembly Bill 1831, authored by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), expanded the state’s child-porn prohibition to material that “contains a digitally altered or artificial-intelligence-generated depiction [of] what appears to be a person under 18 years of age” engaging in or simulating sexual conduct. Senate Bill 1381, authored by Sen. Aisha Wahab (D-Hayward), amended state law to more clearly prohibit using AI to create images of real children engaged in sexual conduct, or using children as models for digitally altered or AI-generated child pornography.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Supreme Court May Allow States to Bar Transgender Athletes

Published

on

Video: Supreme Court May Allow States to Bar Transgender Athletes

new video loaded: Supreme Court May Allow States to Bar Transgender Athletes

transcript

transcript

Supreme Court May Allow States to Bar Transgender Athletes

The Supreme Court heard two cases from West Virginia and Idaho on Tuesday. Both concerned barring the participation of transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports teams.

“It is undisputed that states may separate their sports teams based on sex in light of the real biological differences between males and females. States may equally apply that valid sex-based rule to biological males who self-identify as female. Denying a special accommodation to trans-identifying individuals does not discriminate on the basis of sex or gender identity or deny equal protection.” “West Virginia argues that to protect these opportunities for cisgender girls, it has to deny them to B.P.J. But Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause protect everyone. And if the evidence shows there are no relevant physiological differences between B.P.J. and other girls, then there’s no basis to exclude her.” “Given that half the states are allowing it, allowing transgender girls and women to participate, about half are not, why would we at this point, just the role of this court, jump in and try to constitutionalize a rule for the whole country while there’s still, as you say, uncertainty and debate, while there’s still strong interest in other side?” “This court has held in cases like V.M.I. that in general, classification based on sex is impermissible because in general, men and women are simply situated. Where that’s not true is for the sorts of real, enduring, obvious differences that this court talked about in cases like V.M.I., the differences in reproductive biology. I don’t think the pseudoscience you’re suggesting has been baked.” “Well, it’s not pseudo. It’s good science.” “It’s not pseudoscience to say boys’ brain development happens at a different stage than girls does.” “Well, with all respect, I don’t think there’s any science anywhere that is suggested that these intellectual differences are traceable to biological differences.” “Can we avoid your whole similarly situated argument that you run because I don’t really like it that much either? And I’m not trying to prejudice anyone making that argument later. But I mean, I think it opens a huge can of worms that maybe we don’t need to get into here.”

Advertisement
The Supreme Court heard two cases from West Virginia and Idaho on Tuesday. Both concerned barring the participation of transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports teams.

By Meg Felling

January 13, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending