Connect with us

Politics

Five ways the Supreme Court could rule for Trump on the 14th Amendment

Published

on

Five ways the Supreme Court could rule for Trump on the 14th Amendment

Now that the Supreme Court has heard arguments in the case of President Trump and the 14th Amendment, it seems clear which side will win. The big question is what route the justices will take to allow him onto the ballot.

In the course of more than two hours of oral arguments Thursday, eight justices advanced at least five paths they might take to rule in Trump’s favor.

Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed to seriously entertain the idea of ruling against him.

Here’s a look at where the court may end up.

Advertisement

What’s at issue

In December, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot because of the 14th Amendment, which was adopted after the Civil War. The amendment’s Section 3 reads:

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, 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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

The amendment was designed to keep former Confederates from regaining power in the U.S. government, but it still has effect and covers Trump, the Colorado court ruled.

The decision had four key elements:

  • As president, Trump had “taken an oath … as an officer of the United States” and is therefore covered by the amendment’s language.
  • Based on a five-day hearing in a Colorado trial court, the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, was an “insurrection.”
  • Trump “engaged” in that insurrection through his words and deeds.
  • Under the terms of the amendment, he is ineligible to “hold any office … under the United States,” including the presidency.

The U.S. Supreme Court justices seemed skeptical of all four elements.

Who gets to decide?

The argument that appeared to attract the most support among the justices questioned the state’s power to decide the case at all.

Advertisement

“Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination, not only for their own citizens but for the rest of the nation?” Justice Elena Kagan asked Jason Murray, the lawyer representing the voters who challenged Trump’s eligibility. “That seems quite extraordinary, doesn’t it?”

Murray insisted that Colorado was deciding only for its citizens and its ballots. What the state did was no different from what others have done in excluding candidates who were too young to hold office or weren’t born in the United States, he said.

Kagan was clearly skeptical. A ruling upholding Colorado’s decision would have nationwide impact, she said.

“There are certain national questions where states are not the repository of authority,” she said. “What’s a state doing deciding who other citizens get to vote for for president?”

The 14th Amendment was “designed to take away powers from the states” after the Civil War, she said later, when Shannon Stevenson, the lawyer for Colorado, defended the ruling. It would be odd for it to be interpreted to allow every state to go its own way, Kagan said.

Advertisement

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, like Kagan, among the three Democratic appointees on the court, similarly questioned the authority of states to make their own decisions on eligibility.

Why would the writers of the 14th Amendment “design a system” that would allow “different states suddenly to say, ‘You’re eligible, you’re not?’” she asked.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that allowing a state-by-state approach inevitably would invite a court in a conservative state to rule that President Biden was ineligible.

“Surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side,” he said. “I would expect … a goodly number of states will say, whoever the Democratic candidate is, ‘You’re off the ballot.’”

Must Congress pass a law?

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh pointed to a decision from 1869, the year after the 14th Amendment was ratified. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase ruled that the disqualification of insurrectionists could not be used unless Congress passed specific legislation to implement it.

Advertisement

Chase issued that ruling, in what is known as Griffin’s case, in his role as an appeals court judge “riding the circuit,” as justices did in the 19th century. So it isn’t a binding Supreme Court precedent. But, as Kavanaugh noted, it is a guide to what at least some figures at the time believed the 14th Amendment to mean. The fact that Congress the following year passed a law to set up the sort of process Chase called for is further evidence, he said.

That 1870 law was repealed long ago, and there’s almost no chance the current, gridlocked Congress would pass implementing legislation now. So a ruling on those grounds would effectively end the case.

One risk would remain for Trump: There is still a law against insurrection on the books, and it provides that a person who is convicted is barred from office. But Trump has not been charged under that law.

A Trump exception?

For Trump’s lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell, a ruling on those grounds would be a partial victory, but the former president might risk future challenges.

The issue of whether Trump was qualified “could come back with a vengeance” after the election, warned Murray, the lawyer challenging him.

Advertisement

“Ultimately, members of Congress may have to make the determination after a presidential election, if President Trump wins, about whether or not he’s disqualified from office and whether to count votes cast for him,” Murray said.

To end the case once and for all, Mitchell urged the court to rule that Trump was never an “officer of the United States” and therefore is exempt from the 14th Amendment’s ban.

Mitchell insisted that those words have a specific, technical meaning in the Constitution: “‘Officer of the United States’ refers only to appointed officials,” not to elected officials like the president, he told the justices.

Some prominent legal scholars have scoffed at that, saying the Constitution should be read as a normal person would read it, not as a “secret code,” as one recent law review article put it.

Mitchell’s argument also ran into objections from some justices.

Advertisement

As Sotomayor noted, the argument feels like “a bit of a gerrymandered rule” because it would benefit only Trump: Alone among presidents, he was never an appointed federal official, a member of Congress or a state official before his election.

“It does seem odd that President Trump falls through the cracks, in a way,” Mitchell conceded. But, he insisted, that’s what the language of the amendment requires.

Is the presidency covered?

Jackson raised a related question: Is the presidency one of the offices the amendment bars an insurrectionist from holding?

The opening words of Section 3 list the specific offices from which an insurrectionist would be barred, she noted. It includes senator, representative and member of the electoral college but never mentions the president. Perhaps that was deliberate, because the writers of the 14th Amendment were mostly focused on preventing “the South from rising again” by keeping former Confederates out of Congress and state offices, she said.

At minimum, the language has “ambiguity,” she said. The court could interpret that ambiguous language to allow voters to make their own decisions.

Advertisement

Is it too early?

Mitchell pressed one other argument that appeared to interest some justices: The amendment says insurrectionists cannot “hold any office” but doesn’t say they can’t run for one.

That’s important, because Congress could vote before Inauguration Day to lift the disqualification. By barring Trump from the ballot, Colorado would, in effect, preempt his right to ask Congress for amnesty, he said.

When the justices convene Friday to discuss the case behind closed doors, they’ll see whether they can consolidate behind one of those arguments. They’re under pressure to act quickly, because the presidential campaign is well underway. If they can produce a unanimous ruling, it might lower the partisan temperature of an inflamed election year.

Advertisement

Politics

Federal judge blocks Trump administration from enforcing mail-in voting rules in executive order

Published

on

Federal judge blocks Trump administration from enforcing mail-in voting rules in executive order

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge in Washington state on Friday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing key parts of an executive order that sought to change how states administer federal elections, ruling the president lacked authority to apply those provisions to Washington and Oregon.

U.S. District Judge John Chun held that several provisions of Executive Order 14248 violated the separation of powers and exceeded the president’s authority.

“As stated by the Supreme Court, although the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, ‘[i]n the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker,’” Chun wrote in his 75-page ruling.

FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULES AGAINST TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP EXECUTIVE ORDER

Advertisement

Residents drop mail-in ballots in an official ballot box outside the Tippecanoe branch library on Oct. 20, 2020 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told Fox News Digital in a statement: “President Trump cares deeply about the integrity of our elections and his executive order takes lawful actions to ensure election security. This is not the final say on the matter and the Administration expects ultimate victory on the issue.”

Washington and Oregon filed a lawsuit in April contending the executive order signed by President Donald Trump in March violated the Constitution by attempting to set rules for how states conduct elections, including ballot counting, voter registration and voting equipment.

DOJ TARGETS NONCITIZENS ON VOTER ROLLS AS PART OF TRUMP ELECTION INTEGRITY PUSH

“Today’s ruling is a huge victory for voters in Washington and Oregon, and for the rule of law,” Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said in response to the Jan. 9 ruling, according to The Associated Press. “The court enforced the long-standing constitutional rule that only States and Congress can regulate elections, not the Election Denier-in-Chief.”

Advertisement

President Donald Trump speaks during a breakfast with Senate and House Republicans at the White House, Nov. 5, 2025. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Executive Order 14248 directed federal agencies to require documentary proof of citizenship on federal voter registration forms and sought to require that absentee and mail-in ballots be received by Election Day in order to be counted.

The order also instructed the attorney general to take enforcement action against states that include such ballots in their final vote tallies if they arrive after that deadline.

“We oppose requirements that suppress eligible voters and will continue to advocate for inclusive and equitable access to registration while protecting the integrity of the process. The U.S. Constitution guarantees that all qualified voters have a constitutionally protected right to vote and to have their votes counted,” said Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs in a statement issued when the lawsuit was filed last year.

Voting booths are pictured on Election Day. (Paul Richards/AFP via Getty Images)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“We will work with the Washington Attorney General’s Office to defend our constitutional authority and ensure Washington’s elections remain secure, fair, and accessible,” Hobbs added.

Chun noted in his ruling that Washington and Oregon do not certify election results on Election Day, a practice shared by every U.S. state and territory, which allows them to count mail-in ballots received after Election Day as long as the ballots were postmarked on or before that day and arrived before certification under state law.

Continue Reading

Politics

Deadly ICE shooting in Minnesota, affordability stir up California gubernatorial forums

Published

on

Deadly ICE shooting in Minnesota, affordability stir up California gubernatorial forums

Just days after the fatal shooting of a Minnesota woman by a federal immigration agent, the Trump administration’s immigration policy was a top focus of California gubernatorial candidates at two forums Saturday in Southern California.

The death of Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, inflamed the nation’s deep political divide and led to widespread protests in Los Angeles and across the country about President Trump’s combative immigration policies.

Former Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon, speaking at a labor forum featuring Democratic candidates in Los Angeles, said that federal agents aren’t above the law.

“You come into our state and you break one of our f— … laws, you’re going to be criminally charged. That’s it,” he said.

Federal officials said the deadly shooting was an act of self-defense.

Advertisement

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) noted that the president of the labor union that organized the candidate forum, David Huerta, was injured and arrested during the Trump administration’s raids on undocumented people in Los Angeles in June.

“Ms. Good should be alive today. David, that could have been you, the way they’re conducting themselves,” he said to Huerta, who was moderating the event. “You’re now lucky if all they did was drag you by the hair or throw you in an unmarked van, or deport a 6-year-old U.S. citizen battling stage 4 cancer.”

Roughly 40 miles south at a separate candidate forum featuring the top two Republicans in the race, GOP candidate and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco said politicians who support so-called “sanctuary state” policies should be voted out of office.

“I wish it was the 1960s, ‘70s, and ‘80s — we’d take them behind the shed and beat the s— out of them,” he said.

“We’re in a church!” an audience member was heard yelling during a livestream of the event.

Advertisement

California Democratic leaders in 2017 passed a landmark “sanctuary state” law that limits cooperation between local and federal immigration officers, a policy that was a reaction to the first Trump administration’s efforts to ramp up deportations.

After the campaign to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom was largely obscured last year by natural disasters, immigration raids and the special election to redraw California’s congressional districts, the 2026 governor’s race is now in the spotlight.

Eight Democratic candidates appeared at a forum sponsored by SEIU United Service Workers West, which represents more than 45,000 janitors, security officers, airport service employees and other workers in California.

Many of the union’s members are immigrants, and a number of the candidates referred to their familial roots as they addressed the audience of about 250 people — with an additional 8,000 watching online.

“As the son of immigrants, thank you for everything you did for your children, your grandchildren, to give them that chance,” former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra told two airport workers who asked the candidates questions about cuts to state services for immigrants.

Advertisement

“I will make sure you have the right to access the doctor you and your family need. I will make sure you have a right to have a home that will keep you safe and off the streets. I will make sure that I treat you the way I would treat my parents, because you worked hard the way they did.”

The Democrats broadly agreed on most of the pressing issues facing California, so they tried to differentiate themselves based on their records and their priorities.

Candidates for California’s next governor including Tony Thurmond, speaking at left, participate in the 2026 Gubernatorial Candidate Forum in Los Angeles on Saturday.

(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

“I firmly believe that your campaign says something about who you will be when you lead. The fact that I don’t take corporate contributions is a point of pride for me, but it’s also my chance to tell you something about who I am and who I will fight for,” said former Rep. Katie Porter.

“Look, we’ve had celebrity governors. We’ve had governors who are kids of other governors, and we’ve had governors who look hot with slicked back hair and barn jackets. You know what? We haven’t had a governor in a skirt. I think it’s just about … time.”

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, seated next to Porter, deadpanned, “If you vote for me, I’ll wear a skirt, I promise.”

Villaraigosa frequently spoke about his roots in the labor movement, including a farmworker boycott when he was 15 years old.

“I’ve been fighting for immigrants my entire life. I have fought for you the entire time I’ve been in public life,” he said. “I know [you] are doing the work, working in our buildings, working at the airport, working at the stadiums. I’ve talked to you. I’ve worked with you. I’ve fought for you my entire life. I’m not a Johnny-come-lately to this unit.”

Advertisement

The candidates were not asked about a proposed ballot measure to tax the assets of billionaires that one of SEIU-USWW’s sister unions is trying to put on the November ballot. The controversial proposal has divided Democrats and prompted some of the state’s wealthiest residents to move out of the state, or at least threaten to do so.

But several of the candidates talked about closing tax loopholes and making sure the wealthy and businesses pay their fair share of taxes.

“We’re going to hold corporations and billionaires accountable. We’re going to be sure that we are returning power to the workers who know how to grow this economy,” said former state Controller Betty Yee.

State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond highlighted his proposal to tax billionaires to fund affordable housing, healthcare and education.

“And then I’m going to give you, everyone in this room and California working people, a tax credit so you have more money in your pocket, a couple hundred dollars a month, every month, for the rising cost of gas and groceries,” he said.

Advertisement

Billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer said closing corporate tax loopholes would result in $15 billion to $20 billion in new annual state revenue that he would spend on education and healthcare programs.

“When we look at where we’re going, it’s not about caring, because everyone on this stage cares. It’s not about values. It’s about results,” he said, pointing to his backing of successful ballot measures to close a corporate tax loophole, raise tobacco taxes, and stop oil-industry-backed efforts to roll back environmental law.

“I have beaten these special interests, every single time with the SEIU,” he said. “We’ve done it. We’ve been winning. We need to keep fighting together. We need to keep winning together.”

Republican gubernatorial candidates were not invited to the labor gathering. But two of the state’s top GOP contenders were among the five candidates who appeared Saturday afternoon at a “Patriots for Freedom” gubernatorial forum at Calvary Chapel WestGrove in Orange County. Immigration, federal enforcement and homelessness were also among the hot topics there.

Days after Bianco met with unhoused people on Skid Row in downtown Los Angeles and Newsom touted a 9% decrease in the number of unsheltered homeless people during his final state of the state address, Bianco said that he would make it a “crime” for anyone to utter the word “homeless,” arguing that those on the street are suffering from drug- and alcohol-induced psychosis, not a lack of shelter.

Advertisement

Former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton criticized the “attacks on our law enforcement offices, on our ICE agents who are doing their job protecting our country.”

“We are sick of it,” he said at the Garden Grove church while he also questioned the state’s decision to spend billions of dollars for healthcare for low-income undocumented individuals. State Democrats voted last year to halt the enrollment of additional undocumented adults in the state’s Medi-Cal program starting this year.

Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Protests Against ICE in Minneapolis Continue Into Friday Night

Published

on

Video: Protests Against ICE in Minneapolis Continue Into Friday Night

new video loaded: Protests Against ICE in Minneapolis Continue Into Friday Night

transcript

transcript

Protests Against ICE in Minneapolis Continue Into Friday Night

Hundreds of protesters marched through downtown Minneapolis on Friday night. They stopped at several hotels along the way to blast music, bang drums and play instruments to try to disrupt the sleep of immigration agents who might be staying there. Mayor Jacob Frey of Minneapolis said there were 29 arrests but that it was mostly a “peaceful protest.”

The vast majority of people have done this right. We are so deeply appreciative of them. But we have seen a few incidents last night. Those incidents are being reviewed, but we wanted to again give the overarching theme of what we’re seeing, which is peaceful protest. And we wanted to say when that doesn’t happen, of course, there are consequences. We are a safe city. We will not counter Donald Trump’s chaos with our own brand of chaos here. We in Minneapolis are going to do this right.

Advertisement
Hundreds of protesters marched through downtown Minneapolis on Friday night. They stopped at several hotels along the way to blast music, bang drums and play instruments to try to disrupt the sleep of immigration agents who might be staying there. Mayor Jacob Frey of Minneapolis said there were 29 arrests but that it was mostly a “peaceful protest.”

By McKinnon de Kuyper

January 10, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending