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
Politics
Video: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary
new video loaded: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary
transcript
transcript
President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary
President Trump fired Kristi Noem, his embattled homeland security secretary, on Thursday and announced his plans to replace her with Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.
-
“The fact that you can’t admit to a mistake which looks like under investigation is going to prove that Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti probably should not have been shot in the face and in the back. Law enforcement needs to learn from that. You don’t protect them by not looking after the facts.” “Our greatness calls people to us for a chance to prosper, to live how they choose, to become part of something special. Anyone who searches for freedom can always find a home here. But that freedom is a precious thing, and we defend it vigorously. You crossed the border illegally — we’ll find you. Break our laws — we’ll punish you.” “Did you bid out those service contracts?” “Yes they did. They went out to a competitive bid.” “I’m asking you — sorry to interrupt — but the president approved ahead of time you spending $220 million running TV ads across the country in which you are featured prominently?” “Yes, sir. We went through the legal processes. Did it correctly —” Did the president know you were going to do this?” “Yes.” “I’m more excited about just ready to get started. There’s a lot of work we can do to get the Department of Homeland Security working for the American people.”
By Jackeline Luna
March 5, 2026
Politics
DOJ continues Biden autopen probe despite former president unlikely to face charges
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is continuing its investigation into former President Joe Biden’s use of an autopen in the final months of his administration — focusing on pardons and commutations — though a senior official said Biden is unlikely to face criminal exposure.
A senior DOJ official told Fox News the autopen investigation is ongoing and not closed, adding investigators are reviewing clemency actions taken in the final months of the Biden administration.
The official also pointed out, however, that the use of an autopen by a sitting president is “established law.”
The issue under review is whether the autopen was used in violation of the law, specifically, whether Biden personally approved each name included on pardon and commutation lists.
A framed portrait shows former President Joe Biden’s signature and an autopen along “The Presidential Walk of Fame” outside the Oval Office of the White House. (Andrew Harnick/Getty Images)
“These types of cases are tough. Executive privilege issues come into play,” the official said.
What is also clear, the official indicated, is that the target of any potential prosecution would not likely be Biden.
“It’s hard to imagine how [Biden] could be criminally liable for pardon power,” the senior DOJ official said.
BIDEN’S AUTOPEN PARDONS DISTURBED DOJ BRASS, DOCS SHOW, RAISING QUESTIONS WHETHER THEY ARE LEGALLY BINDING
The use of the autopen by former President Joe Biden remains under investigation. (AP Photo)
The official noted that one reason the former president would be unlikely to face charges stems from a 2024 Supreme Court ruling that originally involved current President Donald Trump but would also apply to Biden.
“We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office,” the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States in 2024.
“At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute.”
Sources familiar with the matter told Fox News Digital that U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s team continues to review the Biden White House’s reliance on an autopen, contradicting a recent New York Times report that indicated the investigation had been paused.
DOJ SIGNALS IT’S STILL DIGGING INTO BIDEN AUTOPEN USE DESPITE REPORTS PROBE FIZZLED
President Donald Trump has pushed for consequences for former President Joe Biden’s alleged use of the autopen. (Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP Photo)
Trump has pushed for consequences over the autopen controversy, alleging on social media that aides acted unlawfully in its use and raising the prospect of perjury charges against Biden.
Biden has rejected those claims, saying in a statement last year he personally directed the decisions in question.
“Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency,” Biden said. “I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false.”
The House Oversight Committee has homed in on Biden’s clemency actions, including five controversial pardons for family members in the final days of his presidency, citing what it described as a lack of “contemporaneous documentation” confirming that Biden directly ordered the pardons.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The committee asked the DOJ to investigate “all of former President Biden’s executive actions, particularly clemency actions, to assess whether legal action must be taken to void any action that the former president did not, in fact, take himself.”
Fox News Digital’s Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.
Politics
Anxiety grows among California Democrats as gubernatorial candidates rebuff calls to drop out
SACRAMENTO — Despite a plea from the head of the California Democratic Party for underperforming candidates to drop out of the governor’s race, all but one of the party’s top hopefuls spurned the request.
Party leaders fear the growing possibility that the crowded field will split the Democratic electorate in the state’s June top-two primary election and result in two Republicans advancing to the November ballot, ensuring a Republican governor being elected for the first time since 2006.
His advice largely unheeded, state party Chairman Rusty Hicks on Thursday said the fate of a Democratic victory now rests squarely on the gubernatorial candidates who flouted him.
“The candidates for Governor now have a chance to showcase a viable path to win,” Hicks said in a statement Thursday.
Eight top Democratic candidates filed the official paperwork to appear on the June ballot after Hicks released a letter on Tuesday urging those “who cannot show meaningful progress towards winning” to drop out. Friday is the deadline to file to appear on the primary election ballot. On March 21, the secretary of state’s office will formally announce who will appear on the June ballot.
“It sounded like someone who has his head in the sand,” former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said of Hicks’ open letter. “[Most] of us filed within 24 hours of getting that letter. It created some press but not much else. It didn’t impact [most] of the candidates and it certainly didn’t impact my candidacy.”
Democratic strategist Elizabeth Ashford said it was appropriate for Hicks and other Democratic leaders to make a public plea as opposed to keeping such discussions solely behind closed doors.
But the response showed the limited power of the modern-day party bosses.
“It’s definitely not Tammany Hall,” said Ashford, referring to the storied Democratic political machine that had a grip on New York City politics for nearly a century. “The party and Rusty are influential and they are helpful and that is their role. I don’t think anyone would be comfortable with outright public strong-arming of specific candidates.”
Ashford, who worked for former Govs. Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger, along with former Vice President Kamala Harris when she served as state attorney general, added that the minimal power of the state GOP is likely a factor in the dynamics of Democrats’ decision to stay in the race. Democratic registered voters outnumber Republicans by almost a 2-to-1 margin in the state, and Democrats control every statewide elected office and hold supermajorities in both chambers of the California Legislature.
“If there were a strong viable opposition that existed, if the Republican Party was actually relevant in California, I think that would sort of force greater unity amongst Democrats,” she said.
Just one of the nine major Democrats did heed the party chair’s message. Ian Calderon, a former Los Angeles-area Assemblyman who consistently polled near the bottom of the field, withdrew from the race and endorsed Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) on Thursday.
Candidates cannot withdraw their name from the ballot once they officially file to run for office, leading to some fears that even if other candidates drop out of the race, a crowded primary ballot could still split California’s liberal votes.
“I’m disappointed most of them will be on the ballot,” said Lorena Gonzalez, the head of the California Federation of Labor Unions, which will announce whether it endorses in the governor’s race on March 16. But “I do still think you can have people drop out of the race or become viable. I think that there are candidates who know viability is a real thing they have to show in coming weeks” before ballots start being mailed to voters.
Jodi Hicks, chief executive and president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, said she is “still worried” about the prospect of two Republicans winning the top two spots in the June primary, shutting Democrats out of any chance of winning the governor’s office in November.
“I didn’t have any specifics of who I wanted to do what,” she said. “I’m just very, very concerned and the stakes are really high right now and seem to be getting worse by the day.”
Republican candidate Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host, said he is “confident that I’ll be in the top two” along with a Democratic candidate. “I find it very difficult to believe that the Democratic Party will just surrender California and allow two Republicans to be in the top two.”
Hilton made the comments Thursday after a gubernatorial forum in Sacramento hosted by the California Assn. of Realtors focused on housing and homeownership. Villaraigosa, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan and former Rep. Katie Porter also attended. Swalwell, who is currently in Washington, joined the panel virtually.
During the panel, candidates were in broad agreement about the need to reduce barriers and costs in order to build more housing in California, where the median single-family home costs more than $820,000. Many also endorsed proposals to disincentivize private investment firms from buying up homes as well as a $25-billion bond proposed by former Sen. Bob Hertzberg to help first-time homebuyers afford a down payment.
“This really isn’t a debate because we’re agreeing so much with each other,” Hilton said at one point during the event.
That political alignment on one of the most pressing issues facing California may explain why voters are having such a difficult time deciding who to support.
A recent poll of the Public Policy Institute of California found that the five candidates topping the crowded field were within 4 percentage points of one another: Porter, Swalwell, Hilton, Democratic hedge fund founder Tom Steyer and Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. Earlier polls had Hilton and Bianco leading the field, though many voters remained undecided.
Some candidates took issue with Hicks’ push to cull the field, noting that most of the lower-polling candidates he asked to drop out are people of color.
“Our political system is rigged, corrupted by the political elites, the wealthy and well connected,” state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, who is Black and Latino, said in a video posted on social media in response to the open letter. “The California Democratic Party is essentially telling every person of color in the race for Governor to drop out.”
Villaraigosa argued that enough voters remain undecided that it was too early for quality candidates to call it quits.
“Most people don’t even know who’s in the race,” said Villaraigosa. “It’s premature to be thinking about getting out of the race. I certainly am not considering it and I feel no pressure.”
Aside from the opinion polls, other indicators on who may emerge from the pack a candidates are slowly emerging.
Though it wasn’t enough to win the party’s endorsement, Swalwell won support from 24% of delegates at the state Democratic convention last month, the most of any party candidate.
While spending is no guarantee of success, Steyer has donated $47.4 million of his own wealth to his campaign. Mahan, who recently entered the race and is supported by Silicon Valley leaders, has quickly raised millions of dollars, as have two independent expenditures committees backing his bid.
Ashford said part of candidates’ decisions to remain in the race could have been driven by their lengthy political careers, as well as Democrats’ crushing November redistricting victory.
“In several cases, these are people who have won statewide office,” she said. “It’s tough to feel like there may not be a sequel to that.”
Nixon reported from Sacramento and Mehta from Los Angeles.
-
World1 week agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Wisconsin4 days agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Massachusetts3 days agoMassachusetts man awaits word from family in Iran after attacks
-
Maryland5 days agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Florida5 days agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Denver, CO1 week ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Oregon7 days ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling