Politics
Trump asks U.S. Supreme Court to keep him on the ballot in Colorado
Former President Trump appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to quickly reverse a Colorado state court decision that would keep him off the ballot there on the grounds that he engaged in insurrection against the United States.
Trump, who is the front-runner in polls for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, argued that the voters should decide who is elected to the nation’s highest office, and that state judges should not decide his eligibility. His lawyers wrote that the Colorado decision “would unconstitutionally disenfranchise millions of voters in Colorado and likely be used as a template to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters nationwide.”
While they did not propose a timetable, the lawyers said it was crucial that the court take up the issue urgently.
Trump’s team offered several reasons for overturning the Colorado court. One would be to rule that the president was not covered by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, an argument that was adopted by a lower-level Colorado trial judge.
“Nothing that President Trump did ‘engaged’ in insurrection,” they said in defending his actions before the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. “President Trump never told his supporters to enter the Capitol, either in his speech at the Ellipse or in any of his statements or communications before or during the events at the Capitol.”
The Colorado Supreme Court became the first in the nation to hold that Trump is disqualified from holding office again. By a 4-3 vote, the state judges said Trump “engaged in insurrection” in a failed bid to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election.
But the state judges agreed to put their ruling on hold while Trump appealed to the U.S. high court. As a result, his name will appear on the state’s Republican primary ballots.
At issue more broadly is whether the former president may be disqualified from holding future office because he violated a provision of the 14th Amendment adopted after the Civil War.
The amendment, which is best known for having extended equal rights and liberties to all Americans, also sought to prevent ex-Confederates from holding office again. Section 3 says, “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military” who, “having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”
For the last year, law professors and judges have been debating whether that provision applies to the Jan. 6 mob attack on the U.S. Capitol, and if so, how.
Trump has not been indicted for inciting an insurrection, although he faces other lesser criminal charges, including conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding.
Two years ago, he was impeached by the House for his role in the Jan. 6 attack, and 57 senators found him guilty. That was 10 votes short of the two-thirds of the Senate required for a conviction, which meant Trump was found not guilty of insurrection.
Acting on a suit brought by several Colorado Republicans, a state trial judge and the state Supreme Court majority said the evidence clearly demonstrated the former president used false claims of vote fraud to persuade his most fervent followers that the election had been stolen.
At his urging, tens of thousands came to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, and then marched to the Capitol seeking to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s victory.
“The record amply established that the events of January 6 constituted a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish the peaceful transfer of power in this country,” the Colorado judges wrote. “This constituted an insurrection.”
Moreover, the insurrection was fomented by the former president, they said. “President Trump’s direct and express efforts, over several months, exhorting his supporters to march to the Capitol to prevent what he falsely characterized as an alleged fraud on the people of this country were indisputably overt and voluntary. Moreover, the evidence amply showed that President Trump undertook all these actions to aid and further a common unlawful purpose that he himself conceived and set in motion: prevent Congress from certifying the 2020 presidential election and stop the peaceful transfer of power.”
Finally, they dismissed the legal claim that the presidency is not covered by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
“President Trump asks us to hold that Section Three disqualifies every oath-breaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land. Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section Three,” they said.
Maine’s secretary of state said last week that she agreed with the Colorado ruling and would remove Trump’s name from her state’s primary ballot.
Politics
State regulators vote to keep utility profits high, angering customers across California
Despite complaints from customers about rising electric bills, the California Public Utilities Commission voted 4 to 1 on Thursday to keep profits at Southern California Edison and the state’s other big investor-owned utilities at a level that consumer groups say has long been inflated.
The commission vote will slightly decrease the profit margins of Edison and three other big utilities beginning next year. Edison’s rate will fall to 10.03% from 10.3%.
Customers will see little impact in their bills from the decision. Because the utilities are continuing to spend more on wires and other infrastructure — capital costs that they earn profit on — that portion of customer bills is expected to continue to rise.
The vote angered consumer groups that had detailed in filings and hearings at the commission how the utilities’ return on equity — which sets the profit rate that the companies’ shareholders receive — had long been too high.
Among those testifying on behalf of consumers was Mark Ellis, the former chief economist for Sempra, the parent company of San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Gas. Ellis estimated that the companies’ profit margin should be closer to 6%.
He argued in a filing that the California commission had for years authorized the utilities to earn an excessive return on equity, resulting in an “unnecessary and unearned wealth transfer” from customers to the companies.
Cutting the return on equity to a little more than 6% would give Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric, SDG&E and SoCalGas a fair return, Ellis said, while saving their customers $6.1 billion a year.
The four commissioners who voted to keep the return on equity at about 10% — the percentage varies slightly for each company — said they believed they had found a balance between the 11% or higher rate that the four utilities had requested and the affordability concerns of utility customers.
Alice Reynolds, the commission’s president, said before the vote that she believed the decision “accurately reflects the evidence.”
Commissioner Darcie Houck disagreed and voted against the proposal. In her remarks, she detailed how California ratepayers were struggling to pay their bills.
“We have a duty to consider the consumer interest in determining what is a just and reasonable rate,” she said.
Consumer groups criticized the commission’s vote.
“For too long, utility companies have been extracting unreasonable profits from Californians just trying to heat or cool their homes or keep the lights on,” said Jenn Engstrom at CALPIRG. “As long as CPUC allows such lofty rates of return, it incentivizes power companies to overspend, increasing energy bills for everyone.”
California now has the nation’s second-highest electric rates after Hawaii.
Edison’s electric rates have risen by more than 40% in the last three years, according to a November analysis by the commission’s Public Advocates Office. More than 830,000 Edison customers are behind in paying their electric bills, the office said, each owing a balance of $835 on average.
The commission’s vote Thursday was in response to a March request from Edison and the three other big for-profit utilities. The companies pointed to the January wildfires in Los Angeles County, saying they needed to provide their shareholders with more profit to get them to continue to invest in their stock because of the threat of utility-caused fires in California.
In its filing, Edison asked for a return on equity of 11.75%, saying that it faced “elevated business risks,” including “the risk of extreme wildfires.”
The company told the commission that its stock had declined after the Jan. 7 Eaton fire and it needed the higher return on equity to attract investors to provide it with money for “wildfire mitigation and supporting California’s clean energy transition.”
Edison is facing hundreds of lawsuits filed by victims of the fire, which killed 19 people and destroyed thousands of homes in Altadena. The company has said the fire may have been sparked by its 100-year-old transmission line in Eaton Canyon, which it kept in place even though it hadn’t served customers since 1971.
Return on equity is crucial for utilities because it determines how much they and their shareholders earn each year on the electric lines, substations, pipelines and the rest of the system they build to serve customers.
Under the state’s system for setting electric rates, investors provide part of the money needed to build the infrastructure and then earn an annual return on that investment over the assets’ life, which can be 30 or 40 years.
In a January report, state legislative analyst Gabriel Petek detailed how electric rates at Edison and the state’s two other biggest investor-owned electric utilities were more than 60% higher than those charged by public utilities such as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. The public utilities don’t have investors or charge customers extra for profit.
Before the vote, dozens of utility customers from across the state wrote to the commission’s five members, who were appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, asking them to lower the utilities’ return on equity.
“A profit margin of 10% on infrastructure improvements is far too high and will only continue to increase the cost of living in California,” wrote James Ward, a Rancho Santa Margarita resident. “I just wish I could get a guaranteed profit margin of 10% on my investments.”
Politics
Video: Trump Boasts About Economy in Prime Time Speech
new video loaded: Trump Boasts About Economy in Prime Time Speech
transcript
transcript
Trump Boasts About Economy in Prime Time Speech
The president gave a televised speech that featured repeated criticism of Democrats and his predecessor, Joseph R. Biden Jr., along with boasts about gains that many Americans have said they are not experiencing.
-
Good evening, America. Eleven months ago, I inherited a mess, and I’m fixing it. The last administration and their allies in Congress looted our treasury for trillions of dollars, driving up prices and everything at levels never seen before. I am bringing those high prices down. It’s not done yet, but boy, are we making progress. Nobody can believe what’s going on. Here are just some of the efforts that we have underway. You will see in your wallets and bank accounts in the new year, after years of record setting falling incomes, our policies are boosting take-home pay at a historic pace. Next year, you will also see the results of the largest tax cuts in American history that were really accomplished through our great, Big Beautiful Bill. Military service members will receive a special, we call, “warrior dividend,” before Christmas, a “warrior dividend,” in honor of our nation’s founding in 1776. And the checks are already on the way. We are respected again like we have never been respected before. To each and every one of you, have a merry Christmas and a happy new year. God bless you all.
By Shawn Paik
December 18, 2025
Politics
Texas Republicans launch ‘Sharia Free America Caucus’ aimed at defending ‘Western civilization’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
FIRST ON FOX: A pair of conservative lawmakers are launching a new group in the House of Representatives to “protect Western civilization in the United States,” according to one of its founders.
Reps. Keith Self, R-Texas, and Chip Roy, R-Texas, are starting the “Sharia Free America Caucus,” Fox News Digital learned first.
“Anytime you go to a fight, you bring as many friends with you as you can. I’m a military guy,” Self told Fox News Digital. “So what we need to do is build this caucus now so that we can start educating the American people to the dangers of Sharia in the United States.”
TRUMP MOVES AGAINST MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AS ISLAMIST GROUP SPREADS IN WEST
Reps. Chip Roy and Keith Self are creating a new group called the “Sharia Free America Caucus.” (Tom Brenner/Getty Images; Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
Self said it was “fundamentally incompatible with the U.S. Constitution.”
The caucus also has support in the Senate from Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., who Self said he hoped could help push some of its legislative goals forward through both chambers.
Among the bills they’re hoping to push is a ban on foreign nationals who “adhere to Sharia” from entering the U.S., and a measure that would designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.
FORMER UK PM DEFENDS TRUMP FOR HIGHLIGHTING ‘SHARIA LAW’ IN BRITAIN DURING UN SPEECH
Sen. Tommy Tuberville arrives for a Senate Republican Caucus luncheon at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, April 2, 2025 (Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images)
“America is facing a threat that directly attacks our Constitution and our Western values: the spread of Sharia law,” Roy said in a statement. “From Texas to every state in this constitutional republic, instances of Sharia adherents masquerading as ‘refugees’ — and in many cases, sleeper cells connected to terrorist organizations — are threatening the American way of life.”
Sharia broadly refers to a code of ethics and conduct used by devout Muslims. Sharia law more specifically often refers to the criminal code used in non-secular Islamic countries, like Iran.
In its most extreme cases, such as when ISIS-controlled parts of the Middle East, charges like blasphemy could carry the death penalty.
U.S. Capitol building is seen in Washington, Dec. 2, 2024. (Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images)
But guarantees of religious freedom in the Constitution mean that Sharia law can not be carried out on any governmental level in the U.S.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The Republicans’ caucus appears largely symbolic in nature, but it’s evidence of the continued culture war raging in the country.
Self also pointed to countries like the U.K. and France, where growing unrest between Muslim refugees and the current populace has dominated headlines in recent years.
-
Iowa4 days agoAddy Brown motivated to step up in Audi Crooks’ absence vs. UNI
-
Washington1 week agoLIVE UPDATES: Mudslide, road closures across Western Washington
-
Iowa5 days agoHow much snow did Iowa get? See Iowa’s latest snowfall totals
-
Maine2 days agoElementary-aged student killed in school bus crash in southern Maine
-
Maryland4 days agoFrigid temperatures to start the week in Maryland
-
Technology1 week agoThe Game Awards are losing their luster
-
South Dakota4 days agoNature: Snow in South Dakota
-
Nebraska1 week agoNebraska lands commitment from DL Jayden Travers adding to early Top 5 recruiting class