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
Spencer Pratt surges to runoff in LA mayor’s race after angry voters send message to Karen Bass
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Reality television personality Spencer Pratt appears on track to clear a key hurdle in Los Angeles’ mayoral race as he seeks to unseat incumbent Mayor Karen Bass in November.
Bass, who has led the city since 2022 amid a turbulent stretch rocked by her response to wildfires, advanced to a runoff after failing to secure a majority of the vote in Tuesday’s primary election. With no candidate surpassing the 50% threshold, the top two finishers will face off in a November runoff.
The anticipated runoff is a symbolic blow to Bass, who was endorsed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., and former Vice President Kamala Harris and has spent decades serving California in a series of elected Democratic offices.
Pratt, a first-time candidate known for the MTV reality show “The Hills,” was running in second place as of Wednesday morning.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass attends the Women for Bass Phone bank event in the Baldwin Hills area of Los Angeles on June 1, 2026. (Louise Barnsley/Splash for Fox News Digital)
REALITY TV STAR SPENCER PRATT TESTS LA VOTERS’ APPETITE FOR POLITICAL OUTSIDER
“Obviously, God wanted five more months of me exposing the failures of our mayor,” Pratt gloated to reporters as the returns came in Tuesday evening.
Pratt has relentlessly hammered Bass on issues that have long plagued the city, including fire recovery, street homelessness and crime. The insurgent candidate holds Bass personally responsible for devastating wildfires that destroyed more than 18,000 structures in the city, including his Pacific Palisades home.
Pratt’s surge appears to have shut out Los Angeles City Council member Nithya Raman, a former ally of Bass who challenged the incumbent from the left and was once viewed as a threat to her bid for a second term. Raman is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America and has argued for steering the city in a more progressive direction.
Raman has not yet conceded despite running well behind Bass and Pratt as of Wednesday morning.
Pratt, a registered Republican, faces an uphill battle to defeat Bass in November if he advances to the runoff election.
Less than 20% of voters in the heavily Democratic city identify with the GOP, though Los Angeles’ mayoral contest is officially nonpartisan.
Media personality and independent candidate Spencer Pratt, left, pictured alongside LA mayor Karen Bass, right. (Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images; Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
KAREN BASS GRILLED OVER BROKEN HOMELESSNESS PROMISE, BLAMES BUREAUCRACY FOR SLOWED PROGRESS
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who represents a San Diego-anchored seat, told Fox News Digital that Pratt has won a following in the mayoral contest due to widespread voter discontent with Bass’ leadership.
“He’s catching fire among ardent historic Democrat voters because Karen Bass has been so ineffective,” Issa said in an interview. “And every time she opens her mouth, she’s talking about more of the same to people who have seen their streets, both crime-ridden and in fact … ineffectively managed.”
Bass, conversely, argues that her leadership is leading Los Angeles in the right direction.
“Los Angeles is at a turning point. After decades of rising homelessness, under-built housing and a shrinking police force, it’s Mayor Karen Bass who finally stepped up to change how City Hall works,” Bass’s website reads.
Los Angeles City Councilmember Nithya Raman appears likely to finish in third place, keeping her out of the November runoff. (Eric Thayer/Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Homelessness is down, more housing is being built, and the LAPD is hiring new officers,” it also claims.
Fox News Digital’s Leo Briceno contributed reporting.
Los Angeles County’s half-cent sales tax to fund healthcare services was trailing Tuesday, with early returns showing a majority of voters rejecting the measure.
The tax — a half-penny of every dollar spent in the county — is meant to prop up local hospitals and clinics that are hemorrhaging funding after recent federal cuts.
The sales tax, which needs a simple majority to pass, would take effect Oct. 1 and last five years. Officials say it would pull in $1 billion annually to help plug the budget holes hitting local hospitals and clinics.
L.A. County health officials anticipate the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law by President Trump last summer, will slash more than $2 billion from the county’s health services budget within the next three years. Due to eligibility changes, the county will no longer be able to get reimbursements for many Californians who have lost Medi-Cal.
The measure was championed by a coalition of healthcare advocates called Restore Healthcare for Angelenos who warned that mass layoffs and emergency room closures could be imminent if new funding didn’t come fast. The Department of Public Health recently closed seven clinics — a grim sign, supporters said, of service cuts to come.
Voters haven’t rejected a sales tax hike since 2012, when a transportation measure fell just short with 66.1% support. It needed 66.7% to pass.
A majority of county supervisors had supported the new tax proposal, voting 4 to 1 this February to put it on the ballot. But the measure faced significant opposition from local cities, with opponents arguing the sales tax hike would unfairly burden the poorest county residents and encourage people to spend their dollars across the county line.
Supervisor Kathryn Barger, the board’s lone opponent of the tax, said she was concerned it was a “general” tax, meaning the money wouldn’t be earmarked for healthcare costs. Instead, she argued, politicians would have final say over how the money gets spent.
The supervisors have created a plan for spending the tax money, with the largest chunk of the money meant to cover the costs for patients without insurance. The measure also asked voters to sign off on a nine-member oversight committee.
The county currently has a base sales tax rate of 9.75%, and cities impose local taxes on top of that.
Politics
DOJ expands indictment against SPLC, alleging $4M secretly funneled to KKK and extremist groups
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The Department of Justice last month announced an indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), alleging that the civil rights nonprofit defrauded donors by secretly paying informants associated with extremist organizations, including the Ku Klux Klan.
A federal grand jury in the Middle District of Alabama returned an 11-count indictment in April charging the SPLC with six counts of wire fraud, four counts of making false statements to a federally insured bank and one count of conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering, according to the Justice Department.
The superseding indictment retains those charges while expanding on the alleged misconduct.
According to the DOJ, the SPLC “secretly funneled” more than $3 million in donor funds between 2014 and 2023 to numerous individuals associated with extremist organizations, including the Ku Klux Klan, United Klans of America, the National Socialist Movement, participants in the Unite the Right rally and the Aryan Nations-affiliated Sadistic Souls Motorcycle Club.
NEO-NAZIS, ‘SADISTIC’ BIKERS AND CHARLOTTESVILLE ORGANIZER: 5 OF THE MOST SHOCKING SPLC INFORMANTS
The Southern Poverty Law Center has widespread influence in education. FILE: Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, left, and SPLC interim President and CEO Bryan Fair are shown in a split image as the Justice Department pursues charges against the Southern Poverty Law Center. (Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images; USA TODAY Network via Imagn Images)
The original indictment alleged approximately $3 million in payments between 2014 and 2023.
“The SPLC’s paid informants (‘field sources’) engaged in the active promotion of racist groups at the same time that the SPLC was denouncing the same groups on its website,” the indictment states.
Prosecutors further allege the SPLC opened bank accounts tied to fictitious entities in order to conceal donor funds that were allegedly routed to confidential sources.
MIKE DAVIS: SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER: A TALE OF A RACISM SCAM
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) building seen in March 2020 in Montgomery, Alabama. (Barry Lewis/InPictures via Getty Images)
According to the indictment, the SPLC began operating a covert informant network in the 1980s, and between 2014 and 2023 allegedly paid those sources in a clandestine manner.
The DOJ alleges an SPLC employee instead encouraged the pair to remain involved and offered them a monthly salary of $1,200.
The two subsequently agreed to remain in the organization, according to the indictment.
DR. BEN CARSON: I KNOW HOW BAD THE SPLC WAS, IT CAME AFTER ME AND PUT ME AT RISK
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche spoke during a press conference alongside FBI Director Kash Patel at the Department of Justice on April 21, 2026, in Washington, D.C., following the indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center. (Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Prosecutors allege an SPLC employee instructed the individuals to claim they worked for a company called Rare Books and helped college students with research and writing assignments if anyone questioned the source of their income.
The indictment alleges donor funds were used to pay both individuals through SPLC accounts.
According to prosecutors, the pair were also reimbursed for expenses related to Ku Klux Klan activities, including cross-burning events and associated costs such as wood and fuel.
One of the individuals is also accused of recruiting new members using donor-funded payments. The indictment further alleges the SPLC knew donor funds were used to purchase materials for Ku Klux Klan garments.
In a statement to Fox News Digital, attorney Abbe Lowell, who represents the SPLC, denied the allegations.
A composite image shows Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche overlaid on photographs of the Department of Justice and FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. (Valerie Plesch/Bloomberg via Getty Images; Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
“This apparent superseding indictment attempts to shore up the flaws in the initial charges, but it changes nothing,” Lowell said.
“The SPLC did not lie to its donors, it did not mislead banks it did business with, and its informant program prevented violence and saved lives,” he continued.
“It appears the Justice Department shared the indictment with media before it was unsealed by the court – another example of the government’s troubling handling of this case.”
“We will be addressing these irregularities with the court and look forward to presenting the truth at trial,” he added.
NONPROFIT REVENUE TOTALS SURGE AMID GROWING SCRUTINY AFTER MAJOR FRAUD CASES
SPLC interim President and CEO Bryan Fair speaks during a wreath-laying ceremony at the Southern Poverty Law Center Civil Rights Memorial in Montgomery, Ala., on March 5, 2026. (Jake Crandall/Advertiser / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images)
The superseding indictment also notes that the SPLC’s reported revenue increased from roughly $38.7 million in 2010 to more than $129 million in 2023, an increase of approximately 233%.
According to the filing, the organization’s net assets grew from approximately $238 million to nearly $787 million during the same period.
The SPLC is a longtime nonprofit organization that says it combats white supremacy and extremism through research, reporting and monitoring efforts intended to assist law enforcement and the public.
During a news conference announcing the original indictment, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche alleged the SPLC paid members of extremist groups so it could generate “work product” documenting their activities.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“To that end, [SPLC] was doing the exact opposite of what it told its donors it was doing – not dismantling extremism but funding it,” Blanche said.
Fox News Digital’s Alexandra Koch, David Spunt, Jake Gibson and Alec Schemmel contributed to this report.
-
Lifestyle29 minutes agoWe’re having a main character summer. Are you? : It’s Been a Minute
-
Technology37 minutes agoMicrosoft AI chief Mustafa Suleyman says there are three labs that matter — and he wants Microsoft to be the fourth.
-
World44 minutes agoUS ally Kuwait condemns ‘brutal and ongoing Iranian attacks’ after airport was hit
-
Politics47 minutes agoSpencer Pratt surges to runoff in LA mayor’s race after angry voters send message to Karen Bass
-
Health52 minutes agoOne extra serving of processed meat a day linked to higher cancer risk
-
Sports59 minutes agoAJ Brown trade outcome: Dianna Russini paid a heavy price while Mike Vrabel emerged unscathed
-
Technology1 hour agoCould your Samsung phone replace your passport?
-
Business1 hour agoRent-hike ban to protect fire victims ends despite gouging concerns
