• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

phisheep

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,798
UPDATE: 4 Mar 2024 - OPINION - 9-0 States cannot enforce against federal officers, 5-4 only Congress can

If Ben Garrison had written *Peanuts* he would have labels all over the place. In this image Charlie Brown would be labelled "TRUMP", the football would be "PRESIDENCY" ...
latest

... and Lucy (in very small letters) would be "SECTION THREE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION".

At stake is whether Trump, and other insurrectionist office-holders, can be removed from office or denied ballot access and, if so, by whom and how and on what exact grounds and evidence. It is a tricky question. While other cases may take away Trump's wealth, his business, and his freedom, these threaten his one remaining ambition and pride and source of fundraising. And for insurrectionist Senators and Representatives, and for MAGA office-holders all around the country it is squeaky bum time.

COLORADO CASE (federal appeals through 10th circuit)
Anderson et al v Griswold & Trump
Brought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) in the 2nd Judicial District, Denver County, CO
docket
petition
30 Oct 2023 - hearing (5 days)
15 Nov 2023 - closing arguments
17 Nov 2023 - FINAL ORDER (Trump engaged in insurrection, but was not an "officer of the United States")

Colorado Supreme Court
20 Nov 2023 - Trump appeal
20 Nov 2023 - Plaintiffs appeal
6 Dec 2023 - hearing
19 Dec - OPINION, Trump is disqualified!

SCOTUS
1) DOCKET (as Colorado Republican State Central Committee v Anderson et al)
27 Dec 2023 - CRSCC petition for certiorari, response 2 Jan, voters brief 2 Jan, Griswold brief 2 Jan, CRSCC reply 4 Jan ...
27 Dec 2023 - CRSCC motion to expedite, response 28 Dec, ...
28 Dec 2023 - voters motion to expedite
3 Jan 2024 - Republican Senators amicus brief (he's not barred from running, only from holding office) (also in Trump v Anderson et al)
4 Jan 2024 - Brian J Martin amicus brief (guy is prepping a challenge in North Carolina)
4 Jan 2024 - Public Interest Legal Foundation amicus brief (supporting Trump)

2) DOCKET (as Trump v Anderson et al)
3 Jan 2024 - Trump petition for certiorari, response 4 Jan due 5 Feb, CERTIORARI GRANTED 5 Jan
4 Jan 2024 - letter in agreement from counsel for CRSCC
4 Jan 2024 - Republican Senators amicus brief (he's not barred from running, only from holding office) (also in CRSCC v Anderson at al)
5 Jan 2024 - Republican National Committee amicus brief (14th amendment only applies after an election, etc)
5 Jan 2024 - 27 states and the Arizona Legislature amicus brief (return the power to congress where it belongs)
(merits briefs key: '-' supporting Trump '*'= neutral '+' supporting respondents)
9 Jan 2024 - Prof Seth Tillman amicus brief (supports Griffin's case, Pres not an officer) (Pres not subject to emoluments clause!)
11 Jan 2024 - Landmark Legal Foundation amicus brief (states can't decide, no private cause of action, Trump didn't insurrect)
11 Jan 2024 - Vivek Ramaswamy amicus brief (antidemocratic, not an officer, Congress does not hide elephants in mouseholes)
15 Jan 2024 - David Weisberg amicus brief (presidency was deliberately omitted from Section Three)
16 Jan 2024 - Prof Kurt Lash amicus brief (Section Three ambiguous, reasonable to exclude presidency, guarded by electoral college)
16 Jan 2024 - William Jones amicus brief (it needs enabling legislation, there was none)
16 Jan 2024 * 'Binkley for President' amicus brief (DC District Court has exclusive jurisdiction under DC Code 16-3051 and 28 USC 2201-02!!)
16 Jan 2024 - Public Interest Legal Foundation amicus brief (Section Three no longer viable, doesn't apply to Trump, besides he was acquitted)
17 Jan 2024 - Colorado Republican State Central Committee brief (not an officer, not self-executing, holding office not seeking it, 1st amendment)
17 Jan 2024 - 102 Republican voters amicus brief (Colorado election law, not an officer, Amnesty Acts)
17 Jan 2024 - Pearl Madrial amicus brief (vote dilution, 12th amendment) (at least it is brief!)
17 Jan 2024 * Jack Coben amicus brief (disqualifies from holding office, not from running)
17 Jan 2024 - Devin & Charles Watkins amicus brief (not an officer, not an insurrection, not self-executing)
17 Jan 2024 - League for Sportsmen amicus brief (not an officer)
17 Jan 2024 * Childrens' Rights Lawyers amicus brief (a plea to decide the case for posterity, not just for now)
17 Jan 2024 - Claremont Institute amicus brief (not an officer, needs implementing legislation, no cause of action)
18 Jan 2024 - Peter Meier amicus brief (non-justiciable political question)
18 Jan 2024 * Akril & Vikram Amar amicus brief (fascinating historical replay from 1860!)
18 Jan 2024 - Judicial Watch amicus brief (due process, voters' rights and future dangers)
18 Jan 2024 - Condemned USA amicus brief (Trump tried to *stop* an insurrection, surejan.gif)
18 Jan 2024 - James Madison Center for Free Speech amicus brief (speech inciting insurrection is not 'engaging in', Ellipse speech is protected)
18 Jan 2024 * Foley, Ginsburg, Hansen amicus brief (states may resolve this, perilous situation that SCOTUS must resolve on merits)
18 Jan 2024 - Kansas GOP & 32 others amicus brief (Colorado was wrong, and it's not ripe anyway)
18 Jan 2024 - Ted Cruz & 178 others amicus brief (This is Congress' business, and it doesn't apply to Trump anyway, plus look how we could weaponise this)
18 Jan 2024 - Larry Kidd amicus brief (can only be enforced as directed by Congress)
18 Jan 2024 * Prof Derek Muller amicus brief (States have the power, but no obligation, other electoral law issues)
18 Jan 2024 * NY Bar Association amicus brief (needs uniform national merits decision, and fast)
18 Jan 2024 - Prof James Lindgren amicus brief (not an officer)
18 Jan 2024 * Brennan Center for Justice et al amicus brief (this is a matter for the States, Moore v Harper)
18 Jan 2024 - Sen Steve Daines & NRSC amicus brief (Colorado modified the qualifications, also 1st amendment)
18 Jan 2024 - RNC & NRCC amicus brief (not for the courts, 1st amendment, doesn't apply to Presidents)
18 Jan 2024 - Former US Attorneys amicus brief (Colorado messed up their own rules of evidence in using the Jan 6 Cttee Report)
18 Jan 2024 - Indiana & 24 others, plus AZ/NC legislatures amicus brief (Congress has to act first, and the courts can't decide what an insurrection is)
18 Jan 2024 * US Term Limits amicus brief (don't apply the Thornton case because it is wrong)
18 Jan 2024 * 11 Secretaries of State amicus brief (we don't want the power to do this!)
18 Jan 2024 * Michigan SoS amicus brief (SCOTUS must resolve fully and on the merits to avoid confusion)
18 Jan 2024 - America's Future et al amicus brief (does not apply to Trump, and there was no insurrection)
18 Jan 2024 - State of Kansas amicus brief (Needs strict construction, does not apply to Trump)
18 Jan 2024 - Christian Family Coalition amicus brief (for Congress alone)
18 Jan 2024 - Gavin Wax/NY Young Republicans et al corrected amicus brief (Trump didn't 'engage' in insurrection)
18 Jan 2024 * NAACP amicus brief (SCOTUS, do your duty and do not mess up again like you did before)
18 Jan 2024 - Former Attorneys General amicus brief (does not apply to President, requires legislation)
18 Jan 2024 - Donald J Trump brief (I was not an officer and I didn't do it, honest)
18 Jan 2024 - Tore Maras et al amicus brief (Colorado decision violates 9th and 10th amendments, and Trump didn't insurrect)
18 Jan 2024 - Wyoming SoS amicus brief (Trump not an officer and didn't do it either)
18 Jan 2024 * David Boyle amicus brief (the strange case of Chuckie Peanut. A rubbish brief but a fun read!)
22 Jan 2024 + Antaeus Edelsohn amicus brief (applies to President, self-executing, must apply to candidates)
26 Jan 2024 + Anderson respondents brief (Trump engaged in insurrection, applies to Presidents, courts may adjudicate)
26 Jan 2024 + Profs Orville Burton et al amicus brief (historical perspective, covers the President, no Congressional action needed)
26 Jan 2024 * Colorado SoS motion for extended oral argument, Anderson opposed 30 Jan, GRANTED 2 Feb
29 Jan 2024 + American Historians amicus brief (historical perspective inc. Jefferson Davis)
29 Jan 2024 + Brian Martin amicus brief (it means what it says, and disqualifies Trump)
29 Jan 2024 + Judge Luttig et al amicus brief (powerful and densely argued, well worth reading)
29 Jan 2024 - Prof Seth Tillman motion to be heard at oral argument, opposed 31 Jan, DENIED 2 Feb
30 Jan 2024 + Prof Kermit Roosevelt amicus brief (policy concerns don't justify setting aside the constitution, anti Griffin's case)
30 Jan 2024 + Former Republican Governors amicus brief (take oaths, and the Constitution, seriously)
30 Jan 2024 + Common Cause amicus brief (Trump is an existential threat, deal with it)
30 Jan 2024 + First amendment scholars amicus brief (it would not breach 1st amendment rights)
30 Jan 2024 + Profs Anderson & Farrell amicus brief (it would not be undemocratic, and Jan 6 is not like BLM protests)
31 Jan 2024 + Constitutional Accountability Center amicus brief (applies to the Presidency and to Presidents)
31 Jan 2024 + Michael T Worley amicus brief (president is an officer of the US, linguistic & historical view)
31 Jan 2024 + Prof Mark A Graber amicus brief (historical understanding of 'insurrection')
31 Jan 2024 + Mary Buchanan amicus brief (former CO SoS: states have broad discretion, Trump had due process)
31 Jan 2024 + Josh Autry amicus brief (it was an insurrection or a rebellion at least)
31 Jan 0224 + Former Republican members of Congress amicus brief (was an insurrection, this is not a job for Congress)
31 Jan 2024 + Jena Griswold brief (Co SoS: Colorado's rights and duties and law)
31 Jan 2024 + Retired State Supreme Court Justices amicus brief (state courts do not need permission from Congress)
31 Jan 2024 + David Cullenberg et al amicus brief (Trump is an insurrectionist, and forfeited his right to serve)
31 Jan 2024 + Prof Sherrilyn Ifill amicus brief (Section Three is fundamental to the protection of civil rights)
31 Jan 2024 + Experts in Democracy amicus brief (fascinating and chilling international comparisons)
31 Jan 2024 + San Francisco Taxpayers amicus brief (Trump engaged in rebellion)
31 Jan 2024 + Capitol Police Officers amicus brief (no first amendment defense)
31 Jan 2024 + Prof David Driesen et al amicus brief (international context, judicial duty to enforce Section Three to protect democracy)
31 Jan 2024 + Prof Ilya Somin amicus brief (does not require criminal conviction, Trump got his due process)
31 Jan 2024 * Jordan Michelson amicus brief (Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction!!) (bonkers I think) (also improper late filing)
31 Jan 2024 - US Justice Foundation amicus brief (Colorado Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction!) (improper late filing)
31 Jan 2024 + Prof Edward Larsen amicus brief (The twentieth amendment)
31 Jan 2024 + David Tatge amicus brief (Chief Justice Chase contradicted himself, Colorado did everything right)
31 Jan 2024 + Jeremy Bates amicus brief (analogy to fiduciary-disqualification)
2 Feb 2024 * David Boyle motion to participate in oral argument (comedy interlude!)
5 Feb 2024 - CRSCC reply
5 Feb 2024 - Trump reply
5 Feb 2024 - Tore Maras et al motion to join in oral argument
8 Feb 2024 - oral argument - transcript
4 Mar 2024 - OPINION - 9-0 States cannot enforce against federal officers, 5-4 only Congress can


MINNESOTA CASE (federal appeals through 8th circuit)
Growe et al v Simon
Brought by Free Speech for People (FSP) in Minnesota Supreme Court
documents (at FSP's site because I can't find a court docket))
petition
2 Nov 2023 - oral argument
8 Nov 2023 - ORDER case dismissed (without prejudice as to the general election)

MICHIGAN CASE
FSP also filed in the Court of Claims in Michigan, (federal through 6th circuit), but it doesn't seem to be doing anything yet.
14 Nov 2023 - ORDER, SoS has no discretion to keep Trump off the primary ballot

MAINE (Trump v Bellows)
28 Dec 2023 - Secretary of State decision (Trump barred from primary ballot)
2 Jan 2024 - Trump appeal to Maine Superior Court


OTHER CASES
There are 30 cases altogether across many states. Most will probably fail on standing.
Lawfare is tracking them here.

ARTICLES
The Sweep and Force of Section Three, Baude & Paulsen (PDF download from here)
Sweeping and Forcing the President into Section 3, Blackman & Tillman

ALSO ON RESETERA
MSNBC: Judge rules that Trump "engaged in insurrection," but is still eligible for ballot (in Colorado).
The Colorado Supreme Court holds that Trump is disqualified from holding the presidency
Trump barred from ballot in Maine
The Supreme Court will decide if Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots
Supreme Court rules that Trump will stay on Colorado state ballot despite Jan. 6 attack


BACKGROUND

U.S.Constitution 14th Amendment Section 3 said:
No person 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, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 3 was adopted in 1868 as a means to prevent Congress being overrun by ex-Confederates. It was rarely enforced, at least in the South, and a couple of amnesties in 1872 and 1898 seemed to have killed it off for its original purpose. Besides, they are all long dead now.

There's only the one precedent against applying Section Three, that's Griffin's Case from 1869, a decision by the then Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase sitting as a Circuit Judge in Virginia, holding that the section is ineffective unless Congress passes enabling legislation. So far as I can tell, this is binding on federal courts only in the 4th Circuit (or possibly only in Virginia, as it predates the modern Appellate Courts and circuits). After that nothing much happened for 150 years.

Then January 6th happened.

A section 3 challenge was brought against U.S.Rep Madison Cawthorn, but eventually mooted as he had already left office. Another came against U.S.Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene, but her challenge to the constitution was mooted in federal court as she was already on the ballot by then. In New Mexico, commissioner Couy Griffin has been removed from office under this section.

Then a couple of Federalist Society lawyers, Baude & Paulsen wrote an academic paper "The Sweep and Force of Section Three" (link above) which analyses the history and law in detail, demolishes Chase's reasoning in Griffin's Case and concludes that Section Three is self-executing to disqualify people from office, that it may be enforced by anyone who has any duty of putting people on ballots at any stage of the process, and that Trump in particular is, as a result, constitutionally prohibited from holding any office. This generated rather a lot of discussion, with Judge Luttig in particular coming out strongly in favour.

Since then many cases have been filed, most of them by pro se litigants who have failed to establish standing. The two cases above are active in state courts, show signs of getting to hearings/trial and, from there, up through the federal appeals courts to SCOTUS. The aim, apparently, being to have the question settled before the Republican primaries kick in.


People who enjoyed this may also enjoy ...
E Jean Carroll v Donald J Trump (civil case for battery and defamation)
Trump on Trial - Episode 1 |OT| The One with the Porn Star
Trump on Trial - Episode 2 |OT| The One with the Perfect Phone Call in Georgia (Fulton County)
Trump on Trial - Episode 3 |OT| The One with the Bigliest Assets Ever (New York Civil Fraud)
Trump on Trial - Episode 4 |OT| The One with the Missing Documents
Trump on Trial - Episode 5 |OT| The One with the Insurrection
Trump on Trial - Episode 7 |OT| The Ones with the Ku Klux Klan Act (Jan 6 civil cases)
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
phisheep

phisheep

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,798
Well, we made it to Episode 6 folks! I still have a bit of tidying-up to do in the OP.

There will be hearings in state courts back end of October and beginning of November. After that, whichever way they go, this will likely be appealed all the way up, and that's where it should get really interesting.

Posting it now because by end October we will be knee-deep in two other trials, and I didn't want to forget this one.
 

jroc74

Member
Oct 27, 2017
29,007
A section 3 challenge was brought against U.S.Rep Madison Cawthorn, but eventually mooted as he had already left office. Another came against U.S.Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene, but her challenge to the constitution was mooted in federal court as she was already on the ballot by then. In New Mexico, commissioner Couy Griffin has been removed from office under this section.
This is interesting as hell, I didn't know about this. I also didn't know about the other 2.

I thought this with regards to Trump would go nowhere, but here we are.
 
OP
OP
phisheep

phisheep

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,798
This is interesting as hell, I didn't know about this. I also didn't know about the other 2.

I thought this with regards to Trump would go nowhere, but here we are.

Yeah, and no-one thought the NY civil fraud thing would be a big deal either, and yet here we are. Fun times.
 
Jan 7, 2021
547
Another good thread. I honestly didn't think there wasn't a leg to stand on since he wasn't convicted of anything yet.
 

Jedi2016

Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,740
Would this remove him from the ballots in only those states that are proceeding with this, or is the idea to prevent it at a federal level and remove him from all ballots, forever?

(Felt good typing that last bit, ngl)
 
OP
OP
phisheep

phisheep

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,798
The idea is to do it everywhere, but the immediate impact of decisions will be restricted to the state or judicial circuit the decision is binding on.

Bur forever? YES.
 

Valkyr

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,940
So in the end, this is almost guaranteed to just come down to a supreme court ruling, correct?
 

MasterYoshi

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,052
How confident are we that the supreme Court would rule in his favor? Seems like they haven't went to bat for him on hardly any other issues.
 

Mandos

Member
Nov 27, 2017
31,056
Isn't the concern that R states may try to do this with prejudice if it succeeds against D candidates?
 
OP
OP
phisheep

phisheep

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,798
How confident are we that the supreme Court would rule in his favor? Seems like they haven't went to bat for him on hardly any other issues.

It'll come down to how they interpret the Constitition versus what tests is proposed for handling the evidence. Can't really guess at it until we see how the arguments develop in the lower courts.

Isn't the concern that R states may try to do this with prejudice if it succeeds against D candidates?

Yes it is, and rightly so. So we'd be wanting either a robust test or a narrow opinion targeting Trump only (and leaving the rest of the law undecided, which would be unsatisfactory).
 

BradyTheGOAT

Banned
Aug 25, 2023
3,349
Isn't the concern that R states may try to do this with prejudice if it succeeds against D candidates?

Well, that's definitely not good for the long term capital D Democratic health of the nation but does anything really change if a Democratic Presidential candidate doesn't get any votes from Indiana?
 

Harbinger00

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,761
Well, that's definitely not good for the long term capital D Democratic health of the nation but does anything really change if a Democratic Presidential candidate doesn't get any votes from Indiana?

Obama won Indiana in 2008. please don't paint red states as being entirely conservative, there are lots of democrat voters here in the cities. Republican lawmakers went so far as to eliminate a lot of our voting locations in the cities to lessen the impact of Indianapolis and South Bend.
 
Oct 25, 2017
11,581
Feels like Episodes 7 & 8 aren't too far off, either...
Volunteer titles, The Hunt for Orange October & The Case of the Arizona Sun Devil.
 
Last edited:

BradyTheGOAT

Banned
Aug 25, 2023
3,349
Obama won Indiana in 2008. please don't paint red states as being entirely conservative, there are lots of democrat voters here in the cities. Republican lawmakers went so far as to eliminate a lot of our voting locations in the cities to lessen the impact of Indianapolis and South Bend.

Obama winning Indiana in 2008 remains one of the most inexplicable things to happen in US politics ever. To put it into perspective, Democratic Presidential candidates have won Indiana exactly four times since 1912. FDR in 32 and 36, LBJ in 64, and somehow Obama. That's it. And those first three times were during historical double digit blowout elections. 2008 was only a 7.5% national vote margin. It's remarkably Republican even through all the realignments and population changes.
 
Oct 27, 2017
10,201
PIT
Not a fan of this episode, it can easily be used to disqualify progressive voices under BS reasons like "boarder safety". I hope if he does become disqualified it's backed by actual convictions.
 

FrostweaveBandage

Unshakable Resolve
Member
Sep 27, 2019
6,719
Not a fan of this episode, it can easily be used to disqualify progressive voices under BS reasons like "boarder safety". I hope if he does become disqualified it's backed by actual convictions.
Yes, the particular portion of the clause and its standard of evidence needs to be determined.

I think it would be more difficult to prove, for example, that he incited the insurrection than he aided and abetted it. In the former case, his speech is able to be interpreted in a few different ways. In the latter, there's no doubt he resisted defending the Capitol.
 

Mivey

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,830
Naturally, there's a LegalEagle breakdown of the possibilities already:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xxHqPIk0r4

It is quite interesting that the notion of "officer"of the US, and whether that includes the President, might actually save Trump here. Would be funny if conservative justices end up making that determination when they always talk about originalism and here we literally have a recorded Congress debate that shows that the framers of Section 3 very much intended to include POTUS as well in the term officer
 

Sheepinator

Member
Jul 25, 2018
28,054
Thanks OP.

What's the betting Thomas doesn't recuse, despite his wife's blatant attempt to aid Trump?
 

Harbinger00

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,761
Obama winning Indiana in 2008 remains one of the most inexplicable things to happen in US politics ever. To put it into perspective, Democratic Presidential candidates have won Indiana exactly four times since 1912. FDR in 32 and 36, LBJ in 64, and somehow Obama. That's it. And those first three times were during historical double digit blowout elections. 2008 was only a 7.5% national vote margin. It's remarkably Republican even through all the realignments and population changes.

I remember that there was a lot of people on the ground getting the vote out that election, I think that helped. a lot of that movement got older and more busy so it's sort of fallen apart.
 

BradyTheGOAT

Banned
Aug 25, 2023
3,349
I remember that there was a lot of people on the ground getting the vote out that election, I think that helped. a lot of that movement got older and more busy so it's sort of fallen apart.

I mean something happened but whatever confluence of events which occurred were freakish. Obama didn't win Missouri and yet somehow won Indiana.
 
OP
OP
phisheep

phisheep

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,798
Thanks OP.

What's the betting Thomas doesn't recuse, despite his wife's blatant attempt to aid Trump?

I'd be very surprised if he recused, but I don't expect that all the R judges will side with Trump either. There's a big split in Republican ranks about this issue, the authors of that paper are FedSoc people for example, and Judge Luttig is with them.

If there's a split decision at SCOTUS there may well be some very strange alliances.
 

Version 3.0

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,203
If this gets enough attention, it's going to be hilarious to watch all the other GOP candidates badmouth it with their fingers crossed behind their backs.
 
OP
OP
phisheep

phisheep

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,798
Been looking at this Colorado case to see what is going on. Procedurally it is a bit messy.

The original petition was seeking both injunctive relief (count 1: to stop the SoS putting Trump on the ballot) and declarative relief (count 2: for the court to say that Trump is not qualified under the constitution). But it turns out that count 1 is under a Colorado election law that allows for expedited processing and limited appeals and bypasses the usual civil procedure, and that conflicts with due process required for count 2.

So the plaintiffs dropped count 2, which also dropped Trump as a defendant, so Trump moved to intervene in the remaining part of the case (granted), as did the CO Republican Party, which then trid to dismiss the entire case but I think they failed.

In trying to get a grip of the issues, probably the best approach is to look at Trump's motion to dismiss, which covers a lot of ground. (Actually so far as I can tell he has filed three motions to dismiss altogether, the other two being an anti-SLAPP 1st amendmant thing, which failed, and some technical thing that I don't understand. This linked one seems the most important.)

I'm going to try a few posts (EDIT: failed, distracted by TotK!) going through Trump's arguments over the next few days, so we know what's at issue before we get to the hearing. The headlines are:

I. This Court Lacks Power to Decide the Nonjusticiable Political Questions Presented Here.

II. Congressional action is required to enforce Section Three, because it is not self-executing when used to prohibit a candidate from standing for election.

III. Congress Has Preempted the States from Judging Presidential Qualifications

IV. Section Three does not apply to President Trump.

V. The Petition fails to state a claim that violence on January 6, 2020, constituted an "insurrection," or that President Trump "engaged" in an insurrection.

VI. This case should be moved to Washington D.C., under Colorado's forum non conveniens statute.


The Minnesota case is a bit different. Trump is not a defendant there. The Trump campaign tried to intervene but got slapped down. I'm not paying much attention to that one for now since the hearing is not until November.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
phisheep

phisheep

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,798
On Friday Judge Sarah Wallace in Colorado gave an order DENYING most of the outstanding motions to dismiss. That's all of them except for the Trump one I mentioned in the above post, which will get a separate ruling.

As usual, much of the joy is in the footnotes.

Footnote 1 said:
Intervenor Trump seems to take the position that Petitioners' C.R.S. Ā§ 1-1-113 claim is directed against him, personally. See Motion, p. 7 ("Petitioners cannot use Section 113 procedures against a private individual, like President Trump. Section 113 is expressly limited to bringing claims against Colorado election officials, not private individuals or potential candidates.") (emphasis in original). As a matter of procedural record, this is simply incorrect: Petitioners' C.R.S. Ā§ 1-1-113 claim is directed at the Secretary of State, not Intervenor Trump.

Footnote 2 said:
Intervenor Trump also argued in his Motion that before there can be a claim or controversy, he would have to be a candidate and that won't happen until he files his Major Party Candidate Statement of Intent. Because Intervenor Trump filed his Major Party Candidate Statement of Intent on October 11, 2023, this issue is now moot.

Most of the order gets into the weeds of particular Colorado election statutes, but the judge did slap down the claim made by both Trump and the Colorado Republican Party that the State has no role whatsoever in deciding whether candidates are constitutionally qualified.

Such an interpretation is absurd; the Constitution and its requirements for eligibility are not suggestions, left to the political parties to determine at their sole discretion. The more logical interpretation is that CRSCC can put forth any candidate it wants as bona fide pursuant to their own rules, but the Secretary will only put candidates that meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications to be on the ballot.

and cites a binding 10th circuit opinion by Judge Gorsuch (as he then was)

a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.


We can sort of guess how the court will rule on Trump's remaining motion to dismiss, as it has already - last Wednesday - issued a non-exclusive list of topics to be covered at the hearing:

topics for trial said:
1. How often and on what basis does the Secretary of State exclude candidates based on constitutional deficiencies?
2. The process for drafting and approving the Major Party Candidate and Statement of Intent and who can revise or edit it?
3. The meaning and historical application of Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment.
4. The 2022 revisions to 3 U.S.C. Ā§ 15.
5. The history and application of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
6. Is Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment self-executing?
7. Does Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment apply to Presidents?
8. The meaning of "engaged" and "insurrection" as used in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
9. Did Intervenor Trump's actions meet the standard set forth in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment?

One more thing. In his (outstanding) motion to dismiss, Trump has cited another academic paper that is in sharp contrast to the Baude & Paulsen one that is behind this lawsuit. To an extent the trial will be a battle between these two papers, which is a Good Thing, because it means both sides are briefed with their strongest arguments.
 
OP
OP
phisheep

phisheep

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,798
Meanwhile in the Minnesota case there appears to be a bit of a roadblock.

Chief Justice Natalie Hudson has ordered additional briefing from both parties, because neither of them considered an earlier Minnesota precedent Oines v Ritchie.

Oines was a birtherist challenge to Obama's candidacy, which was dismissed. The reason for the dismissal was that, under Minnesota law, candidates for the presidency and vice presidency are specifically exempted from having to file an affidavit demonstrating their eligibility for office. Instead. the parties nominate their candidates and the Secretary of State must certify only the names of duly nominated candidates.

This is different from the situation in Colorado, where the SoS's duty is to certify the names of duly qualified candidates.

So I rather suspect that the Minnesota case is dead from having sued the wrong defendants.
 
OP
OP
phisheep

phisheep

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,798
In Colorado, the parties have proposed some additional questions for trial

Intervenor Trump's proposed additions:
10. The standard of proof that applies to this case.
11. Whether the word "engage" under Section Three requires specific intent.
Intervenor Colorado Republican Central Committee's proposed addition:
12. Whether the Petitioners' requested relief would violate the First Amendment.

Number 10 is the really important one here, and I'm surprised it wasn't on the court's list to start with.
 
OP
OP
phisheep

phisheep

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,798
The Colorado court has issued an Order DENYING Trump's remaining motion to dismiss

(The numbering below is from Trump's motion)

I. This Court Lacks Power to Decide the Nonjusticiable Political Questions Presented Here.

Trump cited mostly irrelevant caselaw. Petitioners cite Elliot v Cruz which held that the constitution does not vest Congress with the determination, nor any entity of federal government. The court will not dismiss on this ground, and will revisit the argument after the hearing.

II. Congressional action is required to enforce Section Three, because it is not self-executing when used to prohibit a candidate from standing for election.

Two conflicting law review articles. Trump claims he has 'ample precedent', but that is only the 1869 Griffin case. Petitioners argue that this question is irrelevant bacause the case is brought under Colorado statute. The court agrees. States can, and have, excluded candidates under section 3 before. (citing various cases in New Mexico, North Carolina, Georgia - mostly from 1869, but one in 2022).

III. Congress Has Preempted the States from Judging Presidential Qualifications

As there appears to be no federal mechanism, this can't be right. So can't dismiss on this ground.

IV. Section Three does not apply to President Trump.

To be addressed at hearing

V. The Petition fails to state a claim that violence on January 6, 2020, constituted an "insurrection," or that President Trump "engaged" in an insurrection.

To be addressed at hearing

VI. This case should be moved to Washington D.C., under Colorado's forum non conveniens statute.

Court goes to great length to explain patiently to Trump that this is a case under Colorado law, everyone in it is in Colorado, there's nowhere else it could be held. Basically that the argument is bullshit.
 
OP
OP
phisheep

phisheep

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,798
SECRET WITNESS?

Trump is trying to exclude a witness from the trial. Petitioners have opposed this, but the filing is so redacted that we don't know who it is.
 
OP
OP
phisheep

phisheep

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,798
Now, just a week before trial, Trump has appealed the whole thing to the Colorado Supreme Court, trying to get the whole thing thrown out.

It's not a particularly interesting filing, as it just repeats the arguments he mode in the motions to dismiss in the court below. So I'm not going to look at it in detail.

It's really just a matter of whether this slows things down for now. It's under this weird Colorado election law, so I'm not at all sure how things are meant to work on appeals.
 
Oct 27, 2017
8,626
Another episode!
I never even realised there were more court cases on the way, this really might be like the star wars saga

Cant wait for Ep 7, 8 and 9
 
OP
OP
phisheep

phisheep

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,798
Don't look now but Minnesota is raising similar concerns. Dunno if phisheep wants to raise a separate thread for it or just keep them all tidied up here.

The Minnesota one is in this OP. It doesn't seem to be doing anything at the moment as it appears they have messed up by suing the wrong defendants.