Connect with us


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



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.


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.


“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.


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.


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.


“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.


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.


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.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Nevada's secretary of state says lawyers who fill poll worker gap should earn continuing education credits



Nevada's secretary of state says lawyers who fill poll worker gap should earn continuing education credits
  • Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar in Nevada seeks to address the shortage of poll workers by offering continuing education credits for lawyers who volunteer to fill the gap.
  • Several states have adopted policies allowing poll working duties to count toward maintaining law licenses, with hopes for further expansion.
  • Aguilar said he seeks to strengthen the pipeline of election workers with legal expertise.

With Nevada counties struggling to find poll workers in a pivotal election year, the top election official in the Western swing state is taking a page from his counterparts elsewhere and is asking the legal community to help fill the gap.

Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar wants lawyers who volunteer at the polls to be able to earn continuing education credits to fulfill annual requirements set by the State Bar of Nevada.

It’s a signal of how lawyers are increasingly seen as ideal candidates for stepping in as poll workers, as the positions have grown harder to fill as once-obscure county election departments have been thrust into the spotlight.


Aguilar likens it to how doctors and nurses stepped up during the pandemic.

Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar speaks at the old Assembly Chambers on May 30, 2023, in Carson City, Nev. With Nevada counties struggling to find poll workers in a pivotal election year, Aguilar is taking a page from his counterparts elsewhere and is asking the legal community to help fill the gap. (AP Photo/Tom R. Smedes, File)


“Everybody needed medical care during the time of COVID. … And this is a time when we need poll workers,” Aguilar told The Associated Press. “That legal community can stand up and protect the Constitution.”

From swing states like Michigan to conservative strongholds like Tennessee and Iowa, election officials have been tapping lawyers and law students as they struggle to fill poll worker spots — a challenge that has become more difficult amid changing procedures and hostility stemming from former President Donald Trump’s claims of a stolen election in 2020.


Other recruiting campaigns have focused on veterans and librarians. In 2020, LeBron James helped spearhead an initiative to help turnout in critical swing states and combat Black voter suppression, in no small part by recruiting poll workers.

Poll workers are on the front lines of increasingly contentious environments — ushering people in, answering technical questions and using a handful of training hours to essentially act as guides for a process where disagreements and misinformation can stir up strong emotions.


Since 2020, eight states have adopted policies to allow poll working duties to count toward credits needed to maintain a law license, and national advocates hope more are on the way.

After pitching the idea at a conference earlier this month, a group of bar association presidents now is tailoring the initiative to individual county election offices, rather than blanket approval from the bar associations for entire states.

“Lawyers are careful, and I respect that. I’m one of them, and it takes a while to process,” said Jason Kaune, chair of the American Bar Association’s standing committee on election law, of getting the initiative approved by state bar associations. “This is just a quicker way to get some real results on the ground.”

For Aguilar, his proposal in Nevada — where turnover has ravaged local election departments since 2020 — is part of a wider plan to protect election workers, whom he refers to as “heroes of democracy.”

Since defeating a Republican election denier in the 2022 midterms, Aguilar has sought to create a better environment for election employees. Last year, he pushed a bill signed by Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo that made it a felony to harass, intimidate or use force on election workers performing their duties in Nevada.


Aguilar also hopes that this latest initiative will strengthen the pipeline of full-time election workers with those already well-versed in the law.

Aguilar had hoped the State Bar of Nevada would have implemented his proposal before Nevada’s Feb. 6 presidential preference primary, but the secretary of state’s office has yet to make a formal request for the association to consider, per the State Bar.

During Nevada’s first-in-the-West presidential preference primaries, many election departments scrambled to find poll workers up until the last minute — particularly in rural areas.

In the state’s two most populous counties — Clark County, which includes Las Vegas, and Washoe County, which includes Reno — all poll worker slots were fully staffed by the start of early voting, according to county and state election offices. But they’ll need more before the June primary and November general elections.

In rural Douglas County, officials recruited 46 poll workers — far short of the 120 needed, clerk-treasurer Amy Burgans said. Lyon County also came up short with 32 of 45 poll workers needed, clerk-treasurer Staci Lindberg said.


Nevada’s concentrated educational landscape could make it difficult for lawyers and law students to spread across many of the state’s far-flung counties, which are some of the largest yet least populated in the country. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas is home to the state’s only law school.

And of the 12,000 attorneys licensed to practice law in Nevada, half are in Clark County, about 14% are in Washoe County and just under 3% are located in the state’s rural counties outside the state capital, according to data from the State Bar of Nevada.

Burgans said she doesn’t know if any lawyers in Douglas County — which borders a large chunk of Lake Tahoe — would take up the offer to earn credit by working at the polls. “But I will tell you that anything that Secretary Aguilar can do to assist us is appreciated by me and the clerks across the state,” she said.

Poll workers have been particularly difficult to find in Douglas County, partly because it has an abundance of part-time residents and there was widespread confusion recently over a state-run primary happening two days before a Nevada GOP-run caucus.

Burgans also noted there’s some fear around becoming an election worker.


For the first time, she had to set up training after letters containing fentanyl were mailed to election officials in several states including Nevada. With a background in law enforcement, Burgans also set up active shooter training. Like election officials across the state, she received emails and calls from voters frustrated about dueling Republican nominating processes earlier this month but said there had been no direct threats.


Humboldt County Clerk Tami Rae Spero said the impact of legal education credits for working the polls could be “minimal.” Still, she appreciates the effort and said it could be a steppingstone for similar programs that could better reach her county with its population of just over 17,000. One option might be offering community college or high school credits, she said.

Aguilar is more optimistic that the program can reach all corners of the state.

“I think there are some people who are pretty driven by the mission and understand the importance of poll workers and understand the process of democracy,” he said. “So they’ll make extraordinary efforts to make sure that happens.”


Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more at our Fox News Digital election hub.

Continue Reading


Democratic Party chair Rusty Hicks assailed as outsider in bid for North Coast Assembly seat



Democratic Party chair Rusty Hicks assailed as outsider in bid for North Coast Assembly seat

At first glance, the Sonoma County Democratic Party’s 36th annual Crab Feed seemed the political schmoozefest it has been for nearly four decades.

For $70, Sonoma County residents could “bump elbows with elected officials” over a North Coast meal of Dungeness crab, salad and pasta served with locally produced red and white wines. But Democratic discord simmered beneath the pleasantries at the Feb. 23 decapod dinner.

The intraparty squabble involves who will replace Assemblymember Jim Wood (D-Healdsburg), who is retiring from his North Coast seat two years before most people expected. The shocking November announcement that Wood wouldn’t seek reelection for his final term after 10 years in the statehouse sent candidates scrambling to prop up campaigns with only a few months to raise money and support before Tuesday’s primary.

In his bid for State Assembly, Santa Rosa Councilmember Chris Rogers has emphasized his leadership in helping guide the region through drought, wildfires and the COVID-19 pandemic.


(Josh Edelson / For The Times)

Three top candidates quickly emerged: California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks, Healdsburg City Councilmember and nonprofit executive Ariel Kelley as well as former Santa Rosa mayor and current Councilmember Chris Rogers.

Disagreement among local Democratic leaders over who should represent Assembly District 2 — a left-leaning, geographically diverse region stretching from Santa Rosa to the Oregon border — has transformed the race into one of the most expensive and divisive in local history.

The Democratic trio are competing for a top-two placement in the March 5 primary, likely alongside the only Republican in the race who conceivably has enough GOP votes in the district to send him to the November general election. A majority of the district’s voters are registered Democrats, so the Democratic candidate who makes it through the primary has a good chance of winning in November.


The district spans five counties — part of Sonoma plus all of Mendocino, Trinity, Humboldt and Del Norte — a roughly seven-hour drive from top to bottom. It takes in 307,000 voters, many of them working-class, across its rural geography. Many residents contend with a shortage of affordable housing, well-paying jobs and limited healthcare access. The region faces growing environmental threats, including deadly wildfires exacerbated by climate change.

The intensive jockeying among candidates to gain traction with voters was evident at the crab event.

“Vote Chris Rogers” buttons competed with “ARIEL” stickers, while Hicks sponsored a table prominently positioned at the front of the hall, where he sat across from Wood and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister).

A campaign pin has "Vote Chris Rogers for State Assembly" written on it.

A supporter wears a pin advocating Chris Rogers for State Assembly at a crab-eating event in Santa Rosa.

(Josh Edelson / For The Times)


Much of the political brouhaha revolves around Hicks, 44, who moved to the region from Los Angeles only a few years ago — a blip in time by some local standards — but who brings with him considerable funding and clout. He is endorsed by outgoing Assemblymember Wood, Gov. Gavin Newsom, U.S. Sen. Laphonza Butler, veterans groups and a long list of powerful statewide labor organizations, among others.

Hicks is proving a formidable candidate. He’s a Texas native and Afghanistan War veteran who was president of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor before being elected Democratic Party chair in 2019. His reputation as a skilled strategist and even-keeled leader in the labor movement helped him dominate that race as the party looked to correct course in the aftermath of an internal sexual misconduct scandal.

His campaign messaging centers on safeguarding district jobs, creating more affordable housing options and expanding access to healthcare in a region with few medical clinics. He has also emphasized environmental preservation, an issue that resonates in a region home to towering redwoods and vast state and national parkland.

“I’m running because I’ve got a long track record of delivering real results for real people,” Hicks said.

A man smiles while talking with other people.

Rusty Hicks, chair of the California Democratic Party and a longtime Los Angeles labor leader, says he and his wife moved to Humboldt County in 2021, after falling in love with the area. Opponents to his Assembly bid question his North Coast credentials.

(Josh Edelson / For The Times)


His opponents describe him in a different light.

Skeptics accuse Hicks of carpetbagging his way from Los Angeles to Humboldt County with ambitions to run for office, and have blasted his long list of donations from Southern California and Sacramento as evidence that he lacks connections to the people he wants to represent.

He’s also faced criticism for maintaining his influential position as party chair while campaigning for Assembly. Hicks said he has suspended his pay and benefits during the race and pledged to step down if elected.

Hicks said he and his wife bought their home in Arcata in Humboldt County in 2021 after falling in love with the North Coast while he was running for party chair. His campaign, he said, is “funded by individuals and workers and the unions that represent them,” a coalition that many backing his candidacy say no Democrat should be criticized for.


Hicks faces a strong opponent in Kelley, 41, a former mayor of Healdsburg, whose endorsements include local government officials and statewide groups dedicated to electing more women to office and expanding access to safe abortion services.

A political action committee supporting Kelley — largely funded by her sister, who poured at least $200,000 into the PAC — has sponsored ads accusing Hicks of covering up sexual harassment in the Democratic Party, an allegation he and his proponents angrily deny. His campaign sent local TV stations cease-and-desist letters warning them against continuing to run ads that Hicks maintains are “patently false.”

Hicks has clapped back with criticism of Kelley’s investments in the oil industry and questioned her connections to a local developer who recently donated $50,000 to the political action committee.

“It’s unfortunate when some candidates and their supporters conclude that they can no longer talk about their own record or run on their own record and decide to lie about mine,” Hicks said.

Kelley said she doesn’t communicate with the PAC or her sister about its strategy, and agrees the negative campaigning is unhelpful. She said her father died last year and left her a trust that held investments “in a number of industries,” and that she plans to divest from those in oil and gas.

A woman holds a hand over her heart at a crab-eating event.

Ariel Kelley, a former mayor of Healdsburg, is one of the Democratic candidates for a North Coast Assembly seat. She is endorsed by local government officials and statewide groups dedicated to electing more women to office.

(Josh Edelson / For The Times)

She’s called the attacks “completely baseless” and a distraction from real issues facing district voters, such as the need for paid family leave for rural families, ensuring access to reproductive healthcare, improving housing affordability and reducing homelessness.

“I’m really focused on just talking about my record of delivering. Because it’s a very strong record of delivering for this community, on homelessness, on wildfire prevention, on housing, healthcare access,” she said.

Rogers, 36, who has also mounted a fierce campaign, has called for his opponents to end the “mud-slinging,” even as he’s expressed many of the same concerns about Hicks’ fundraising strategies.


Raised in Sonoma County, Rogers worked for a decade as an aide to congressional and state legislators in the district before launching his career in local politics. He contends he is most qualified to represent the district after steering the region through emergency after emergency as Santa Rosa’s mayor and during his time on the City Council, including the COVID-19 pandemic, a drought, flooding and devastating wildfires.

Rogers is endorsed by Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg), whom he worked for as a legislative staffer, and a long list of city and county officials, a local firefighters group and environmental organizations. He said he’s focused on mitigating climate change, protecting local healthcare facilities from closing and addressing a critical narrowing of access to homeowners insurance in Northern California communities.

“I have that experience. Not just understanding the perspective, but how to translate needs in the district into legislative action,” Rogers said.

Yurok Tribe Vice Chair Frankie Myers, 43, is also running as a Democrat, hoping to become the second Native American elected to the California statehouse. Myers has received support from tribal communities throughout the state.

He’s tried, with limited success, to break through the bickering with his message about elevating tribal issues and the importance of environmental stewardship and universal healthcare.


“I’m learning it is a privilege running for state Legislature. It has a lot of barriers for low-income people, people from historically disadvantaged communities,” he said. “We’ve only had one single elected Native American in the state Legislature in the history of this state. And now having campaigned, there’s some realizations I’m coming to about why that is.”

A man smiles while speaking to a woman at an event.

Frankie Myers, vice chair of the Yurok Tribe, is hoping to be the second Native American elected to the California Legislature.

(Josh Edelson / For The Times)

A fifth Democrat, Mendocino County Supervisor Ted Williams, hasn’t raised money and is in effect using his campaign to encourage candidates to focus on rural issues. A sixth Democratic candidate, Cynthia Click, has withdrawn from the race, though her name will appear on the ballot.

Michael Greer, the one Republican running for the seat, has focused his campaign on bread-and-butter issues familiar to many California families, including public safety, the rising numbers of people living homeless and spiraling housing costs, along with North Coast-specific concerns similar to those raised by the other candidates.


“As one vote, as one Republican, can I change the votes on all these things?” Greer said of his potential effect in the Democratic-led Assembly. “No. But I can be loud enough to make sure that the rural areas are heard.”

People mingle at an event.

Santa Rosa’s 36th annual Crab Feed gave voters a chance to meet leading candidates in the bid to represent residents in the geographically diverse Assembly District 2, which spans California’s North Coast.

(Josh Edelson / For The Times)

Wood said many of the candidates are using overly broad rhetoric to describe the district’s challenges and seem unfamiliar with the progress he’s made in addressing specific policy areas during his decade in Sacramento. The real challenge, he said, will be building on his successes to fine-tune those policies.

“It’s a hugely challenging district,” Wood said. “So you have to really commit to spending the time to learn it and to respect it to be able to help solve some of the problems that we face.”


Wood was quick to endorse Hicks’ bid for Assembly, saying he was confident the party chair would be a “workhorse” for the district.

“I respect anybody who wants to run here, but I think the depth and breadth of his experience and the things he’s done and his life experience make him the best candidate,” Wood said.

Wood noted, however, that he’s been surprised and disappointed by the negative campaigning.

“This is not what we’re used to on the North Coast,” he said. “I don’t like it, and I don’t think voters really like it either.”

Continue Reading


Clinton-era treasurer honored in Ohio hometown for 30th anniversary of inauguration



Clinton-era treasurer honored in Ohio hometown for 30th anniversary of inauguration

A history-making, record-setting former U.S. treasurer is being celebrated in her Ohio city this week as she marks the 30th anniversary of her swearing-in ceremony.

Democrat Mary Ellen Withrow, 93, plans six appearances Thursday and Friday around Marion, about 50 miles north of Columbus, to mark the occasion. The city is also home to a museum collection of her memorabilia.


Withrow was nominated by former President Bill Clinton and sworn in March 1, 1994.

Then-Treasurer Mary Ellen Withrow personally signs a redesigned $50 bill in San Diego, on Oct. 31, 1997. (AP Photo/Michael Poche, File)


The first person to serve as a local, state and federal treasurer, Withrow served in her Washington role until 2001. She has her signature on more U.S. currency than any other person, setting a mark recognized by the Guinness World Records.

The anniversary festivities include an appearance on WGH Talk radio Thursday to discuss her life and career, as well as appearances Thursday and Friday at four area middle and high schools, including Elgin, on whose school board she got her start in politics in 1969.

Withrow plans to deliver her original acceptance speech at a celebratory reception Friday at the Kingston Residence that is open to the public.

Continue Reading