Good summation of pending lawfare:

Supreme Court to the Rescue? Will the High Court Play Savior in America’s Latest Legal Circus?
One might assume that the Supreme Court would feel a sense of obligation to address the issue of a former President being excluded from the ballot in certain states.
Christy Kelly
Jan 1, 2024
https://www.wrongspeakpublishing.com/p/s...tm_medium=email


The Supreme Court urgently needs to pick up the pace and take on the Trump ballot cases. The nation’s patience and the principles of our democracy are seemingly on a tightrope with each passing day. The phrase "It's a Republic if you can keep it" resonates deeply as each new legal challenge tests our great experiment.
How the U.S. Supreme Court Decides to Hear A Case... Or Not

The United States Supreme Court is not obligated to hear the majority of cases submitted to it. Each year, the Court is presented with thousands of petitions for a writ of certiorari—a request to review a case. However, it only agrees to hear a small fraction of these. The Court exercises considerable discretion in its decision to take a case, though it typically considers factors like the national importance of the case, its potential to resolve conflicts in the interpretation of federal law or the Constitution across different lower courts, and the opportunity to correct serious errors in lower courts' legal interpretations. There are exceptional cases known as "original jurisdiction" cases, where the Court is mandated to hear the case. These are usually disputes between states or cases involving a state as a party, as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. These cases are rare.

One might assume that the Supreme Court would feel a sense of obligation to address the issue of a former President being excluded from the ballot in certain states. However, in this particular situation, original jurisdiction does not apply. Considering the significant importance of such a matter, it would seem reasonable to anticipate that the Court might expedite its decision-making process to address the case. Numerous Republicans contend that the very essence of our constitutional republic is at stake. Yet, the Court has been slow to respond.

The Supreme Court lacks original jurisdiction in matters concerning the ballot access of candidates, including Donald Trump or anyone else. State laws and regulations primarily govern presidential candidate ballot access. Disputes or challenges related to this are initially heard in state courts or federal district courts. These cases may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but if so, the Court acts in an appellate capacity, not under original jurisdiction. Should a ballot access case reach the Supreme Court, it would be through the appellate process, giving the Court discretion over whether to hear the case.

Consequently, we find ourselves in a kind of limbo, collectively holding our breath as these ballot access disputes make their way up the judicial ladder. Eventually, they will reach the Supreme Court, where the justices have the discretion to choose whether or not to intervene. Several cases are already at the Court’s doorstep, with additional states poised to join the queue.

Legal Cases: The Tug-of-War Over Trump's Election Eligibility

Donald Trump is entangled in various legal challenges, it is hard to keep up!

While this article zeroes in on his ballot access issues, an overarching view of his legal troubles is beneficial. Here’s a brief summary of the key legal battles he’s facing:

The Espionage Act Case: Scheduled for trial in May 2024, Trump faces 32 felony counts for allegedly willfully retaining national defense information in violation of the Espionage Act. These charges relate to documents allegedly kept at Mar-a-Lago post-presidency.-- excerpt, rest at link above --

Excerpt from Sotomayor (joined by Kagan and Jackson) concurring opinion:

In this case, the Court must decide whether Colorado may keep a Presidential candidate off the ballot on the ground that he is an oathbreaking insurrectionist and thus disqualified from holding federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case. Yet the majority goes further. Even though “[a]ll nine Members of the Court” agree that this independent and sufficient rationale resolves this case, five Justices go on. They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy. Ante, at 13. Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so. The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment….

Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President. Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision. Because we would decide only the issue before us, we concur only in the judgment.

Excerpt from Barrett's concurring opinion:

I join Parts I and II–B of the Court’s opinion. I agree that States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this case, and I would decide no more than that. This suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law in state court. It does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.

The majority’s choice of a different path leaves the remaining Justices with a choice of how to respond. In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.

Supreme Court rules states cannot remove Trump from ballot for insurrection
By Amy Howe on Mar 4, 2024 at 12:09 pm

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/03/supreme-court-rules-states-cannot-remove-trump-from-ballot-for-insurrection/

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states cannot disqualify former President Donald Trump from the ballot for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol. In an unsigned opinion, a majority of the justices held that only Congress – and not the states – can enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was enacted in the wake of the Civil War to disqualify individuals from holding office who had previously served in the federal or state government before the war but then supported the Confederacy, against candidates for federal offices.

All nine justices agreed that Colorado cannot remove Trump from the ballot. But four justices – Justice Amy Coney Barrett in a separate opinion and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in a joint opinion – argued that their colleagues should have stopped there and not decided anything more.

The court’s decision comes just one day before Super Tuesday, when 16 states and one territory will hold their primary elections. Trump currently holds an overwhelming lead in the race for the Republican nomination.

The dispute leading to Monday’s opinion began last year in a state court in Colorado. A group of voters in that state argued that Trump was ineligible to appear on the ballot under Section 3, which provides (as relevant here) that no one “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,” if that person had previously sworn, “as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States,” to support the Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the federal government.

A state trial court concluded that Trump had “engaged in insurrection,” but it rejected the voters’ request to remove him from the ballot. The presidency, that court ruled, is not an “office … under the United States,” and the president is not an “officer of the United States.”

The voters appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, which agreed that Trump is ineligible to appear on the ballot under Section 3. But that court put its ruling on hold to give Trump time to go to the Supreme Court, which agreed early this year to weigh in.


-- excerpt, rest at link above --

Advance to 39 minutes in to hear Trump's comments on the decision: