West
Trump backed by 27 states in Supreme Court fight, who warn of 2024 'chaos' if he's removed from ballot
More than two dozen states have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, urging the nation’s highest court to keep former President Trump on the Colorado Republican presidential ballot and warning that failing to do so could throw the 2024 presidential election “into chaos.”
The attorneys general of Indiana, West Virginia and 25 other states, warn the court that the move by the Colorado Supreme Court to declare Trump an “insurrectionist” under the Fourteenth Amendment “has vast consequences that reach far beyond Colorado.”
The nation’s highest court will hear arguments on February 8 and set a January 18 deadline for similar briefs. The justices issued an administrative stay that orders the Colorado Secretary of State to put the former president’s name on the GOP primary ballot, at least until the case is decided.
SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE IF TRUMP BANNED FROM COLORADO BALLOT IN HISTORIC CASE
Former U.S. President Donald Trump waves to the crowd on the field during halftime in the Palmetto Bowl between Clemson and South Carolina at Williams Brice Stadium on November 25, 2023, in Columbia, South Carolina. (Sean Rayford/Getty Images)
The state court ruled that Trump had engaged in an insurrection for his role in January 6, 2021, riots at the U.S. Capitol. The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868 after the Civil War, bars people who “engaged in insurrection” from holding public office.
The states argue that state-imposed restrictions have a national consequence in this instance and the ruling “threatens to throw the 2024 election into chaos.”
“Voters who may wish to cast their ballots for former President Trump cannot know whether he ultimately will be excluded from the ballot in their State or others. They may wonder whether a little non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel is all it takes for former President Trump to be excluded from ballots across the Nation,” they say.
They also argue that the court’s decision on what constitutes an insurrection is “standardless and vague” and denied the former president an opportunity for due process, including calling witnesses and the discovery process.
“The Colorado Supreme Court has cast itself into a ‘political thicket,’ . . . and it is now up to this Court to pull it out,” they say.
The states warn that if the Colorado decision is allowed to stand, the confidence in the integrity of the electoral process will be harmed.
TRUMP ASKS SUPREME COURT TO KEEP NAME ON COLORADO BALLOT
“Many Americans will become convinced that a few partisan actors have contrived to take a political decision out of ordinary voters’ hands,” they warn.
The brief also argues for immediate action as the court “should not let the uncertainy persist” and warns that additional confusion could build if more states remove Trump from the ballot as the primaries and caucuses near.
“Any damage may already have been done by the time another case raising similar issues makes its way back to this Court. And the longer litigation over a national candidate’s eligibility persists, the more uncertainty and confusion will spread. Voters need an answer in time to judiciously weigh the merits of competing candidates before casting their ballots, not after voting has begun,” the states say.
BIDEN MARKS THREE YEARS SINCE JAN. 6 BLASTING TRUMP, SAYING HE IS ‘TRYING TO STEAL HISTORY’
The brief also argues that, if allowed to stand, other potential disqualifications could arise in the future, asking whether a president could be stopped from running for re-election due to a wartime mistake construed as giving “aid or comfort” to enemies.
“The Court should act now to stop all these ‘strange, far-reaching, and injurious results’ from spinning out of control,” the states say.
Finally, the brief argues that the decision for who is qualified to serve as president is up to the voters, not to the courts.
“If the voters find former President Trump qualified, and Congress concurs, then the Constitution does not contemplate a time for the judiciary to second-guess that call. Rather, the Constitution gives Congress the sole and final authority to determine whether the President can continue to serve, as many courts have said.”
Fox News’ Sarah Rumpf-Whitten, Bill Mears and Shannon Bream contributed to this report.
Read the full article from Here
Washington’s Supreme Court has agreed to weigh in on the constitutionality of a portion of the recently passed income tax on high earners, also known as the “millionaires tax.”
The law includes a clause that prevents it from being repealed by voters through a method called a referendum, something that conservative group Let’s Go Washington has alleged is unconstitutional.
RELATED: Washington’s historic income tax on high earners is now law
“The framers of our constitution said, ‘We don’t like taxes,’ and then, they were very strict about the rules of what could be taxed and how it could be taxed,” Let’s Go Washington founder Brian Heywood said. “It’s mind-boggling… [to] say we’re going to make an exception to anything that’s tax-related and the people can’t do a referendum on it.”
Heywood and his group attempted to file a referendum petition on the new law last week, but the Secretary of State bounced their petition back, noting that a referendum was not allowed under this law. In response, Let’s Go Washington filed the lawsuit challenging the clause.
A referendum is a particular process that has to be filed within 90 days after the Legislative session has ended to repeal a law that was passed during that session. If 154,455 signatures can be collected by June, voters would have a chance to repeal the targeted law in November. Implementation of the law is frozen until voters have a chance to weigh in.
Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen, who sponsored the tax, said the inclusion of a clause to bar a referendum isn’t unusual for legislation that involves taxes, and wasn’t put in to try to dampen voter participation. Many revenue-related bills often include a clause that prevents a referendum from being brought against them, because in the state constitution, revenue-generating bills are necessary to the functioning of government.
“That’s not some special measure to try to block public involvement in the process,” Pedersen said. “That is just a statement of fact under the Constitution, that this is a revenue measure and it’s not subject to referendum.”
RELATED: Is ‘millionaire migration’ really a thing? Lessons from states that already tax the rich
State constitution scholars agree.
Hugh Spitzer, a professor at the University of Washington School of Law and expert on Constitutional Law, said while there have been about a dozen instances over the past 100 years where the clause barring a referendum on a law has been challenged, the court has typically held that the clause is constitutional.
“The Legislature has to make tough choices about taxes and about budgets, and so it would interfere with the functionality of government if every time the Legislature adopted a tax or passed a budget bill, it went to referendum,” Spitzer said.
In the past, he said people have tried to bring a referendum against a number of laws, such as a law allocating money for highway construction, excise taxes on margarine, a timber tax — all had a clause barring a referendum petition, and the court did not rule that could be overridden.
“I would say that the petitioners or plaintiffs in this instance have an uphill climb to get the court to rule against the Legislature’s use of the existing public institutions clause,” Spitzer said.
The Supreme Court is expected to hold a hearing on the constitutionality of this clause at the end of April. If the justices rule the use of the clause is unconstitutional, Pedersen has said the Legislature may need to call a special session, as the state’s budget for the next four years was balanced partially with revenue collected from the tax.
RELATED: Coming soon: Lawsuit challenging Washington state’s ‘millionaires tax’
If the Supreme Court upholds the clause, there is still another opportunity for voters to weigh in.
Let’s Go Washington has said if their referendum petition is denied, they will be pursuing the initiative process to put a repeal of the law on the ballot, though an initiative requires twice as many signatures to be gathered.
“A referendum is a simple, easy to understand, up or down, yes or no vote,” Heywood said. “If it’s an initiative, you have to get people to understand ‘vote yes in order to vote no,’ and that’s a much harder sell.”
Wyoming
Wyoming’s data center boom prompts lawmakers to address electricity consumption and resource management.
A Republican lawmaker from Laramie County says a legislative committee he co-chairs will be taking a close look at data centers in Wyoming, focusing on electricity consumption.
Committee Co-Chaired By Sen. Chris Rothfuss
Rep. Daniel Singh is the House Chair of the Select Committee on Blockchain, Financial Technology And Digital Innovation Technology. The Senate Chair is Senator Chris Rothfuss [D-Albany County].
On his legislative Facebook page, Singh wrote recently “We will be taking a serious look at data centers and electricity usage. As more large scale computing operations come into Wyoming, we have to make sure these major electricity users do not affect the availability or cost of power for everyday Wyoming families, workers, and businesses. We will also be exploring the cooling technologies used by data centers. Management Council made clear that conversations specifically about water usage should be handled by the Select Water Committee. In response, our committee will focus on the broader category of cooling systems and the technologies that can reduce reliance on water.”
According to Baxtel.com there are currently 21 data centers in Cheyenne.
In a Saturday interview on the “Weekend In Wyoming” program on am 650 KGAB, Singh went into more detail on the topic. In regard to water usage. Singh said there are options that centers can use to avoid using water, including using air cooling or other liquids as coolants. ”I hope that these tech companies are getting the picture that if these people want to do business in states like Wyoming, that they need to respect the wishes of the people that live here. So they can’t be using insane amounts of water.”
Singh says the state could impose rules on water usage for the centers if need be.
In regard to electricity, Singh says he will be pushing for requirements that the centers use “behind the meter power.” That basically means requiring data center companies to generate their own electricity ”preferably using traditional fuels, minerals from Wyoming.”
While some see data centers as a growing industry that can contribute to the economy, many people in the Cheyenne area in particular are concerned about the centers using too much water and/or electricity and causing water and electric bills to skyrocket for everyone else.
One vocal critic in Cheyenne is Rick Coppinger, a former candidate for mayor who remains active in local politics. Coppinger told Townsquare Media on Monday afternoon:
”I understand that they say that a lot of these data centers are using sealed systems for cooling or as well as using glycol systems for cooling or other agents. I think you’ll find that even though they’re using sealed water systems you’ll find that they are still going through an about 1,000,000 gallons a year per gigabyte hour. Also, when the federal government and the state government have to intervene to tell us that the people will not have to pay higher electric bills because of these #DATA centers forces me to be very concerned.”
Hear Rep. Daniel Singh ”Weekend In Wyoming” Interview Here.
LOOK: 21 Candies From the ’80s That You Probably Haven’t Thought About in Years
How many of these over-the-top ’80s candies — sweet, sour, and sometimes downright ridiculous — do you remember from your childhood?
Gallery Credit: Stephen Lenz
The San Francisco 49ers can’t keep looking back at the past just because it’s familiar.
At some point, there comes a time when a reunion with former players no longer makes sense. In some cases it can work — like bringing back Dre Greenlaw — but the door must remain closed on one former San Francisco player who will likely keep being linked to a return until it either happens or the speculation finally dies down.
Deebo Samuel rumors are still rife
“Deebo Samuel lost a step in 2025, and he also battled through quarterback instability. Samuel averaged a career-low 10.1 yards per reception in 2025, and the two lowest receiving yards per game totals of his seven-year career came in 2024 (44.7) and 2025 (45.4),” wrote Garrett Podell of CBS Sports.
“Samuel isn’t the same bulldozing Swiss Army knife that once served as the focal point of Kyle Shanahan’s San Francisco 49ers offense.
“He can still knock would-be tacklers over in the open field after the catch, as evidenced by his playmaking against the Dallas Cowboys on Christmas, but his separation in his route running is slipping. Samuel still has value in 2026, but it’s not what it once was in his prime.
“It would make all the sense in the world for Samuel to come back home to San Francisco. Kyle Shanahan will certainly look to lighten running back Christian McCaffrey’s workload after 413 touches in the regular season.
“That’s the most in a season since Cowboys running back DeMarco Murray’s 449 back in 2014. McCaffrey also turns 30 years old on June 7. Bringing back Samuel to fill in for McCaffrey on some of the checkdowns and screens in Shanahan’s offense could maximize the former’s skill set while preserving the latter for postseason football.”
While there is some substance behind the reasoning to bring Samuel back, the franchise may ultimately choose not to pursue a reunion. The front office has already admitted that they want to reduce McCaffrey’s workload.
Admittedly, they have said that before, but this time there is reason to believe they will finally follow through.
Plus, even if the idea of a reunion with Samuel generates attention, the franchise has more pressing needs to focus on moving forward. The front office has already acquired experienced playmakers like future Hall of Famer Mike Evans and a depth piece in the form of Christian Kirk.
Those additions suggest the team has moved on from making a return for Samuel.
WA Supreme Court to consider Let’s Go Washington lawsuit challenging ‘millionaires tax’
DPI report highlights difficulties retaining teachers in Wisconsin
West Virginia Treasurer Allocates Medical Marijuana Revenue Despite Governor’s Veto – Marijuana Moment
Wyoming’s data center boom prompts lawmakers to address electricity consumption and resource management.
Solana Foundation Launches STRIDE Security Program for DeFi Protocols Following Drift Incident
Florida High School Football Rankings: Top 25 teams – Oct. 21
How old is Bo Nix? What to know about Oregon quarterback ahead of 2024 NFL Draft
Cleary's 21 help Le Moyne down Central Connecticut State 69-64 in OT
99th annual Pony Swim held in Virginia
Indiana Members Credit Union announced as new anchor tenant at Bottleworks District
Map: Minor Earthquake Strikes Near San Diego
Trump claims he’d win as the president of Venezuela — just needs to ‘quickly’ learn Spanish
US Supreme Court clears path for Steve Bannon criminal case dismissal
Trump reiterates threats to bomb Iran’s power plants and bridges
Trump threatens Iranian infrastructure over Strait of Hormuz | BBC News
-
Atlanta, GA2 days ago1 teenage girl killed, another injured in shooting at Piedmont Park, police say
-
South-Carolina1 week agoSouth Carolina vs TCU predictions for Elite Eight game in March Madness
-
Vermont1 week agoSkier dies after fall at Sugarbush Resort
-
Movie Reviews5 days agoVaazha 2 first half review: Hashir anchors a lively, chaos-filled teen tale
-
Politics1 week agoTrump’s Ballroom Design Has Barely Been Scrutinized
-
Atlanta, GA1 week agoFetishist ‘No Kings’ protester in mask drags ‘Trump’ and ‘JD Vance’ behind her wheelchair
-
Entertainment5 days agoInside Ye’s first comeback show at SoFi Stadium
-
Politics1 week agoJD Vance says he was ‘obsessed’ with UFOs, believes aliens are actually ‘demons’