Some belated thoughts on the Colorado Supreme Court’s historic ruling Tuesday that Trump is disqualified from the presidency as an insurrectionist. I’ll start with the dessert and then get to the medicine. ...
/1bit.ly/3vcCJTW
... Right after Jan. 6, when people first started talking about § 3 of the 14th Am, I assumed that when the matter finally reached SCOTUS, Justices Alito & Thomas would write separately—no matter what the rest of the court did—to say that Jan. 6 wasn’t an insurrection. ...
/2
... But today, with more knowledge about both § 3 & J6, such an opinion “won’t write,” as clerks say. You'd have to ignore every relevant judicial ruling, dictionary definition, grand jury charge, & treatise and rely, instead, on @WSJ op-eds by former Trump Adm folks. ...
/3
... As the SCOCO majority wrote, one can quibble about the outer contours of "insurrection," but “[a]ny definition ... would encompass a concerted & public effort ... to hinder ... the US govt from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power.” /4
... Claiming that Trump didn’t “engage in” the insurrection also fails. Even if a SCOTUS justice isn’t willing to disqualify, he/she won’t try to make that argument. Doing so would enshrine their disingenuousness in the US Reports forever. ...
/5
The SCOCO majority wrote (with no dissents on this): “As our detailed recitation of the evidence shows, President Trump did not merely incite the insurrection. Even when the siege on the Capitol was fully underway, he continued to support it ...
/6
... by repeatedly demanding that Vice President Pence refuse to perform his constitutional dutyand by calling Senators to persuade them to stop the counting of electoral votes. These actions constituted overt, voluntary, and direct participation in the insurrection.”
/7
SCOCO also found (with no dissents) that Trump’s Ellipse speech overcame 1st Am bars & constituted incitement : “We agree that President Trump intended that his speech would result in the use of violence or lawless action on J6 to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. ...”
/8
“ ... Despite his knowledge of the anger that he had instigated, his calls to arms, his awareness of the threats of violence that had been made leading up to January 6, and the obvious fact that many in the crowd were angry and armed, ... “
/9
... “Pres. Trump told his riled-up supporters to walk down to the Capitol and fight. He then stood back and let the fighting happen, despite having the ability and authority to stop it ..., thereby confirming that this violence was what he intended.”
/10
... The trial judge's escape hatch—that the presidency isn’t an “office” and the president isn’t an “officer” within the meaning of § 3—did not win a single vote at SCOCO. It will be a heavy lift at SCOTUS, where conservatives see themselves as “plain meaning” originalists.
/11
... In its landmark 2008 gun-rights ruling, SCOTUS conservatives scoffed at reading into constitutional provisions “secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens” at the time of drafting. The SCOCO majority quoted that language here ...
/12
... in overturning the trial judge’s finding on that issue. “The drafters of Section Three were motivated by a sense of betrayal; that is, by the existence of a broken oath, not by the type of officer who broke it.” ...
/13
“A construction of Section Three that would nevertheless allow a former President who broke his oath, not only to participate in the government again but to run for and hold the highest office in the land, is flatly unfaithful to the Section’s purpose.”
/14
... Now for the medicine. SCOTUS faces a stark choice. On the one hand, it can disqualify—something only 4 of 7 Democratic-appointed judges had the cajones to do at SCOCO. ...
/15
... A SCOTUS ruling to disqualify would likely incite violence and, doubtless, serious death threats against justices. Ideally, you'd like a 9-0 ruling to gain public acceptance, and gaining even 5 is hard to imagine. ...
/16
... But what’s the escape hatch? There aren’t many credible ones left. The §-3-doesn’t-apply-to-presidents argument always had trouble passing the laugh test, and it emerged from the appellate crucible even worse for wear. ...
/17
... How did the dissenters find their way out? Two cited state law issues. SCOTUS can’t do that, tho, both because it’s not supposed to decide state law & because that won’t give guidance for the other cases now rising up thru the court systems of other states.
/18
... That leaves the route that dissenting Justice Samour took: that § 3 isn’t “self-executing” and only Congress can devise an enforcement mechanism for it. This is the argument that Chief Justice Salmon Chase adopted in Griffin’s Case while sitting as a lower court judge ...
/19
... in Virginia in 1869. Since then, some of the nation’s best constitutional historians & scholars (including originalists) have picked gaping holes in Chase’s nonbinding reasoning. E.g., this link:
/20bit.ly/3QxDqzA
... Chase’s ruling was crudely result-oriented and anything but “originalist.” Still, justices looking for a way out may grab that one. ...
/21
Although @gtconway3d has written that the dissents in the Colorado case reinforced in his mind the strength of the majority opinion, I had a slightly different takeaway. ...
/22bit.ly/3Nxl0fZ
@gtconway3d ... I agree that none of the 3 dissenters bowled anyone over with a bullet-proof legal argument. But the emotional cri du coeurs from two of them may have a impact on some SCOTUS justices—including the liberals. ...
/23
@gtconway3d ... Chief Justice Boatright bemoaned the “breakneck pace” of the CO election-challenge procedures, which he said just weren’t “commensurate” with the “extraordinary” issues being decided. “Just because a hearing was held ... doesn’t mean ... due process was observed.”
/24
@gtconway3d ... Justice Carlos Samour was the most impassioned. “I have been involved in the justice system for 33 years now,” he wrote, “& what took place here doesn’t resemble anything I’ve seen in a courtroom.” ...
/25
@gtconway3d ... Samour said the “the Section Three challenge brought by the Electors was a square constitutional peg that could not be jammed into our Election Code’s round hole,” and that “what transpired in this litigation fell woefully short of what due process demands.”. ...
/26
@gtconway3d ... Personally, I thought Judge Sarah Wallace presided over a very fair 5-day bench trial. (And ruled for Trump!) After all, this isn’t an Agatha Christie whodunit. Thanks to the House Select Committee, everyone subject to compulsory process has already been deposed. ...
/27
@gtconway3d ... Furthermore, Trump chose not to testify. That can and should be used against him at a civil trial (though neither the trial judge nor SCOCO justices appear to have held that against him). ...
/28
@gtconway3d Still, I can’t see SCOTUS voting to disqualify. While there isn’t a good “plain meaning” originalist basis for *not*disqualifying, five justices can turn to Griffin’s Case and say “I’m just following precedent.” That's their least implausible escape hatch.
/29-end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
After today’s 5th Circuit argument in the Alien Enemies Act case WMM v Trump ( formerly AARP) it appeared that at least 2 of the 3 judges would approve the validity of Trump’s Alien Enemies Act proclamation. Unclear what due process they’ll afford targeted aliens. ...
1/6
... Judge Andrew Oldham (Trump appointee) doubted that a court could "countermand" virtually any aspect of Trump's decree. He even doubted that aliens had a right to deny their membership in Tren de Aragua, tho SCOTUS has said they do. ...
2/6
... Judge Leslie Southwick (GWBush) was tending toward adopting Judge Haines's (WDPenn) view. Haines found that the decree plausibly found a “predatory incursion” in light of Secy Rubio’s designation of TdA as a “foreign terrorist organization.” ...
3/6
Emil Bove, like Blanche on X, may be evading. Reuveni wrote than on 3/14 "Bove stated that DOJ would need *to consider* telling the courts "fuck you” and ignore any such court order." So it's true Bove didn't literally order anyone to violate court orders *at that meeting* 1/3
... & it’s also true that Reuveni, later that day, after speaking to DOJ colleague Flentje, felt momentarily reassured. But it's the events that followed--laid out in detail over 27 pages--that suggest that Bove's "fuck you" comment *was* eventually carried out. ... 2/3
... And I don't think anybody yet has denied that the "fuck you" comment was made. Maybe Bove will today. Maybe not. But there’s likely a text between Reuveni & Flentje referencing it when DOJ/DHS was, it seems, violating Judge Boesberg’s orders on 3/15.
/3-end
Tomorrow, at noon, Judge Farbiarz (DNJ) will hold a hearing on whether to release Mahmoud Khalil on bail. Khalil, in custody in Louisiana, requested the hearing 91 days ago. Since then at least 5 others similarly situated have all been released. Thread.
1/21
Khalil is a lawful permanent resident Columbia grad student who participated in Gaza protests. No criminal record. Palestinian. On 3/8 he was detained in his lobby in NYC as he returned with his US citizen wife, who was then 8-months pregnant. ...
/2
On 3/9, Khalil sued seeking release, alleging retaliation for 1st Amendment protected speech.
On 3/11 DHS told Khalil that the reason he was being removed was Secy Rubio’s finding that his presence in US had “serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” ...
/3
Hearing in Newsom v California, the national guard case, starting at 4:30pm ET. I'll try to live-blog for @lawfare , technology permitting. ... It's on Zoom, but I think the 1000 max has already been hit. ...
/1
Judge Charles Breyer on bench now.
Newsom v Trump
counsel giving appearances
Nicholas Green for state AG seems to be lead.
Brett Shumate from DOJ
/2
Judge: preliminary comments. reason it's necessary to have briefing is while it was initially styled ex parte proceeding, it was certainly not ex parte. there was cooperation between parties. wanted to make sure i had complete record to extent it can be achieved
/3
In motion for civil contempt & other sanctions against govt officials, including personal fines, Abrego Garcia’s attys shoot for the moon. Here they ask Judge Xinis to order AG Pam Bondi et al. to turn over her personal devices for in camera review. ...
/1 storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
The motion relies on allegations of both a pattern of obstruction & specific responses inconsistent with NYT reporting & the timing of Abrego Garcia's indictment. Here, e.g., attys allege 60 days of obstructive conduct *after* SCOTUS ruling ordering facilitation of his return:
/2
But the real smoking guns are alleged responses of, for instance, DHS atty Joseph Mazzara, who filed a declaration & was deposed in the case. NYT has reported emails of him allegedly saying, "We're also trying to keep him where he is."
/3
Admitting “perfect storm of errors,” DHS has changed its story in the case of Jordin Melgar-Salmeron, the 31yo Salvadoran who, on 5/7, was deported to El Salvador 28 minutes after the US 2d Circuit Court of Appeals forbade his removal pending appeal. ...
/1
... Melgar-Salmeron was appealing an adverse asylum ruling. On 4/17 govt told USCA2 it would remove him unless court stayed his removal by 5/8. On 5/7, at 9:52am ET, USCA2 stayed his removal. But at 10:20am ET he was removed anyway. ...
/2 documentcloud.org/documents/2597…
... Govt has filed 3 letters explaining. 2d letter, on 5/28, said there were 2 computer systems. Deportation officer, reporting to DOJ, monitored one showing deportation set for 5/9. But ICE Air had him down for 5/7 all along. DOJ & ICE Air statements of 5/28 below:
/3