West

Trump backed by 27 states in Supreme Court fight, who warn of 2024 'chaos' if he's removed from ballot

Published

2 years ago

January 8, 2024

Press Room

Trump backed by 27 states in Supreme Court fight, who warn of 2024 'chaos' if he's removed from ballot

Read this article for free!

Plus get unlimited access to thousands of articles, videos and more with your free account!

Please enter a valid email address.

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

Montana

Montana AG letter alleges Helena violates law banning ‘sanctuary cities’

Published

1 hour ago

March 10, 2026

Press Room

Montana AG letter alleges Helena violates law banning ‘sanctuary cities’

HELENA — On Monday, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen sent a letter to the City of Helena claiming the municipality is not in compliance with the state’s law banning “sanctuary cities.” The letter comes just under a month after the State of Montana launched an investigation into a city resolution on Helena Police policy and Helena’s involvement in federal immigration enforcement.

In the letter, Knudsen laid out the ways he believes the city’s resolution violated state law. The attorney general gave Helena 15 days to respond or reverse the policy. If the city does not comply, his office will pursue legal action.

“Helena’s resolution appears to contain blatant violations of this law,” wrote Knudsen.

MTN News

On January 26, 2026, the City of Helena adopted a resolution clarifying when and how the Helena Police Department will cooperate with federal immigration officials. The vote was 4 to 1. The Helena commission seats and the mayor are elected in non-partisan races.

In the letter, Knudsen alleges the resolution established “a broad sanctuary city policy” that seeks to protect every illegal immigrant, regardless of whether the individual had committed a serious crime or not. The state further claims the resolution gives illegal immigrants “special privileges” in plea deals and establishes a “free-for-all policy” where a police officer can request the unmasking of Department of Homeland Security and ICE officers.

Knudsen has requested that the City of Helena, in their response, specifically describe in detail how the resolution complies with Montana law, provide emails and correspondence from city staff and the commission regarding the resolution.

Helena City manager Alana Lake told MTN in a statement: “The City of Helena is aware of the issues being raised by the Attorney General’s Office and is reviewing the matter. While we cannot discuss the details of a potential legal issue, the City is committed to transparency and compliance with the law. The City takes these matters seriously and will continue to cooperate with the appropriate authorities while remaining focused on serving our community.”

Passed in 2021, Montana House Bill 200 prohibits a state agency or local government from implementing any policy that prevents employees or departments from communicating with federal agencies regarding immigration or citizenship status for lawful purposes. It also states governments must comply with immigration detainer requests if they are lawfully made.

HB 200 was backed by Republicans and passed with only Republican votes. Gov. Greg Gianforte signed the legislation into law on March 31, 2021.

Passage of the resolution by the Helena City Commission has drawn ire from conservative voices in Montana politics and on the national level.

The resolution said the commission supported the Helena Police Department avoiding “committing its resources to federal action for which it has no authority,” such as entering into an agreement with the federal government to directly enforce immigration laws. Under federal law, immigration enforcement is conducted by federal agencies under the Department of Homeland Security. However, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, state and local governments can voluntarily enter into 287 (g) agreements with the federal government that allow them to enforce immigration laws.

The commission further supported HPD’s policy not to stop, detain, or arrest a person solely on suspected violations of immigration law, including assisting other agencies in an arrest based solely on immigration law.

DEEPER LOOK: Helena has seen a growing debate over ICE and local police involvement

In the resolution, the commission also supported an HPD officer, using their own discretion, requesting the identification and unmasking of a Department of Homeland Security Officer if the HPD officer “feels it will not be interfering with the actions of federal officers exercising their jurisdiction.”

“This adversarial relationship by local law enforcement toward federal officers itself undermines public safety and forces immigration officers to fear for their safety when they are simply carrying out their lawful duties,” wrote Knudsen.

The resolution further supports the City of Helena’s policy not to consider immigration consequences in a plea agreement with a defendant.

The commission also supports the City of Helena not disclosing any sensitive information about any person – including immigration status, sexual orientation, or social security number – except as required by law.

“This is a restriction that directly conflicts with Montana’s prohibition on sanctuary jurisdictions, specifically ‘sending to, receiving from, exchanging with, or maintaining for a federal, state, or local government entity information regarding a person’s citizenship or immigration status for a lawful purpose,’” the attorney general wrote.

If a government is found to be violating Montana’s law banning “sanctuary cities”, the state could fine them $10,000 every five days, prevent them from receiving new grants from the state, and have their projects with the state re-prioritized. A government in violation can avoid penalties by becoming compliant with the law within 14 days of being notified of the violation.

Read the full letter from the Montana Attorney General to the City of Helena:

Source link

Nevada

Visitors flock to Death Valley National Park in California and Nevada for rare superbloom

Published

1 hour ago

March 10, 2026

Press Room

Visitors flock to Death Valley National Park in California and Nevada for rare superbloom – CBS Baltimore

Watch CBS News

Visitors are flocking to Death Valley National Park for a rare superbloom.

Source link

New Mexico

Tanya Tucker to perform at New Mexico State Fair

Published

2 hours ago

March 10, 2026

Press Room

Tanya Tucker to perform at New Mexico State Fair

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Country Music Hall of Fame inductee Tanya Tucker will perform at the 2026 New Mexico State Fair, officials announced Tuesday.

Tucker will take to the stage Friday, Sept. 18, after the Chevron PRCA rodeo. The Grammy Award-winning icon has racked up 10 No. 1 country hits since her first hit, “Delta Dawn,” at age 13.

“We couldn’t be more thrilled to bring the legendary Tanya Tucker to the New Mexico State Fair,” said Dan Mourning, general manager of the New Mexico State Fair. “Tanya is one of the greatest icons in country music history and is the perfect fit for the Fair.”

Tucker has 23 Top-40 albums and 56 Top 40 singles on the Billboard country music charts. She has won two Country Music Association awards, two Academy of Country Music awards, three CMT Awards and two Grammys for Best Country Album and Best Country Song.

Tickets are set to go on sale on Friday at 10 a.m.

Here is the full 2026 New Mexico State Fair rodeo-concert lineup:

Friday, Sept. 11

Turnpike Troubadours with Chevron PRCA Xtreme Bulls

Saturday, Sept. 12

Ian Munsick with Chevron PRCA Xtreme Bulls

Wednesday, Sept. 16

Chevron PRCA Standalone Rodeo

Thursday, Sept. 17

Everclear with Chevron PRCA Rodeo

Friday, Sept. 18

Tanya Tucker with Chevron PRCA Rodeo