There’s a fair chance SCOTUS will grant cert this (Fri) afternoon in the Colo case barring Trump from ballot under § 3 of 14th Am as an "insurrectionist." If it does, look for two things: (1) timing; (2) which issues does SCOTUS want briefed? ...
1/12
The Colo Republican Party (CRSCC) wants SCOTUS to address 3 issues, while Trump wants it to address 5, only one of which overlaps. Most interesting will be whether SCOTUS addresses whether Trump “engaged in insurrection”—an issue Trump raises.
/2
The party wants an expedited schedule, reaching resolution by 3/5/24 (Super Tuesday). Voter-challengers, rep’d by @CREWcrew , want even faster schedule (below), reaching resolution by 2/11/24, when in-state voters start receiving ballots. They seek 1/19/24 oral arg. ...
/3
@CREWcrew ... The state Republican Party wants 3 issues addressed, but only the 1st two seem certworthy to me: 1. Does § 3 reach presidents? 2. Is § 3 self-executing? (I.e., must Congress enact an enforcement mechanism first?) ...
/4
@CREWcrew ... Trump wants 5 issues addressed: 1. Is this a nonjusticiable political question (i.e., one courts can’t address because it’s up to Congress—though no one knows exactly how Congress could address it.) 2. Does § 3 reach presidents? 3. Did Trump “engage in insurrection”? ...
/5
@CREWcrew ... 4. Did Colo Supreme Court violate the Electors Clause (Art II, Sec 1, cl 2) by misreading its own election laws? 5. Because § 3 bars insurrectionists from office, not from running for office, did Colo unconstitutionally add a new hurdle for running for President?
...
/6
@CREWcrew SCOTUS might not specify which issues it wants briefed, in which case all would be in play. I don’t see point of addressing Trump’s 4th issue, about CO law, since it addresses only CO. Similarly, 5th just kicks constitutional crisis further down the road. ...
/7
@CREWcrew Meanwhile, the Maine case is fast approaching. Trump has appealed SecState Bellows’ administrative ruling disqualifying him to superior court, which must rule by 1/17/24. Loser then appeals to Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which rules by 1/31/24. ....
/8 bit.ly/48nFnoj
@CREWcrew ... Finally, as an overview, there have been “more than 60” administrative or court challenges to Trump under § 3, per Trump’s cert petition. Trump Campaign declines to share his list with me, but that probably includes ≥ 14 withdrawn lawsuits ...
/9
@CREWcrew ... Thanks to @hyeminjhan and Caleb Benjamin, who run @lawfare 's Disqualification Tracker, we're aware of 40 lawsuits in 36 states, of which 14 have been withdrawn. ≥19 still pending, at least on appeal, including the ME & CO disqualifications. ...
/10 bit.ly/3vbrNWy
@CREWcrew @hyeminjhan @lawfare Adm challenges in IL and MA brought yesterday by @FSFP. (Not reflected on our map, which shows litigations.) Also, MN and Mich have each dismissed challenges on grounds relevant only to primaries, leaving open challenges to general election ballots.
/11 bit.ly/3vbrNWy
@CREWcrew @hyeminjhan @lawfare @FSFP ... As someone pointed out—sorry, I can’t find his post to give credit—it seems that SCOTUS can resolve all § 3 litigation *only* with a pro-Trump ruling (e.g., § 3 doesn’t apply to presidents). Affirming COLO's disqualification wouldn't seem to bind other states. ...
/12-end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Judge Crenshaw wants to make public his 12/3 ruling discussing the key role Dep AG Todd Blanche’s office played in deciding to prosecute Abrego Garcia. But Crenshaw is giving govt 'til 12/30 to appeal his rulings rejecting govt's atty-client & other privilege claims ... 1/4
Due to a redacting error in a defense brief, we already know that Crenshaw’s 12/3 ruling, still under seal, concluded that Blanche’s associate, Aakash Singh, played “a leading role” in deciding to prosecute Abrego. ... 2/4
In an effort to fend off Abrego’s vindictive prosecution claims, McGuire claimed he alone made the decision, and he was untainted by the vindictive motives attributable to Trump/Blanche. (Just like Halligan claiming that she, not Trump, decided to pursue Comey & James.) ...
3/4
In sealed order issued 12/3, Judge Crenshaw found that @DAGToddBlanche's deputy, Aakash Singh, played a “leading role in the govt’s decision to prosecute” Abrego Garcia. Abrego’s attys’ failed to redact that language in a brief, correcting the error shortly thereafter... 1/2
... The DAG office’s role, Abrego’s attys argue, conflicts with multiple assertions from US Atty McBride, who initially claimed that the Office of DAG was "not involved.” Later, when DAG's role emerged, McGuire said said it was just “appropriate oversight.” ...
/2
Today’s Third Circuit ruling that Alina Habba was unlawfully appointed casts doubt on @AGPamBondi 's back-up theory for Halligan—the notion that Bondi could appoint her a “special atty” (under 28 USC § 515) who could do everything a US atty could. ... 1/4
... The situations were not identical. Halligan’s original appt was under 28 USC § 546; Habba’s was under Federal Vacancies Reform Act. Still, key gist—that a “special atty” appt under § 515 can’t circumvent Congress’s more specific statutory scheme—is the same. ... 2/3
... Anticipating this, Bondi alternatively appointed Halligan under § 515 as, in effect, a hand-picked prosecutor for just Comey & James (left). That might stand. But it would strengthen Comey’s & James’s claims (right) that their prosecutions are vindictive & selective. ... 3/3
If you read the precedents Abrego Garcia is citing in seeking release from detention, you begin to realize the unreported horrors Trump's DHS/ICE is quietly committing throughout the country. Take Zavvar v Scott, for instance. ... 1/7 law.justia.com/cases/federal/…
Reza Zavvar, 52, came to the US from Iran when he was 12 (so 40 yrs ago). He was granted asylum & permanent residence. Then, in the 1990s, when he was in his 20s, he had 2 misdemeanor convictions for possession of pot. ...
/2
In 2004, because of those, the GWBush Adm got an order of removal against him, but removal to Iran was withheld because of threats to his life or freedom there. He was then allowed to live & work in MD without incident *for nearly 18 years.* ...
/3
Judge Immergut (my new favorite judge) issued her 31-page opinion, barring federalization of 200 National Guard troops in Portland, <48 hrs after entering the case. It’s a model of restrained but powerful prose & reasoning. Read it yourself ... 1/3 storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Without hyperventilating, she lays out in ¶ 1 the huge stakes here. The case is about "3 of the most fundamental principles in our constitutional democracy": * federalism; * the relationship between the military & domestic law enforcement; * and judicial review. ...
/2
Her ruling is also a model for how a judge can use Trump’s unhinged words (“war-ravaged Portland”) against him without going off the rails him- or herself. E.g., “The president’s own statements [show] that his determination was not ‘conceived in good faith.’”
/3-end
Given that @DowJones is not seeking a merger that @BrendanCarrFCC can block, Trump’s suit against the @WSJ (re the Epstein Birthday book note) seems destined for swift dismissal + assessment of attys fees. ... 1/6 storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Yesterday, @WSJ moved to dismiss on 3 seemingly iron-clad grounds: The article is (1) true; (2) not defamatory; & (3) lacks any whiff of “actual malice.” It’s true in that it only describes a note “bearing Trump’s name” & includes his denials in the subhead & in 3 ¶s of text.
/2
It's not defamatory because a bawdy note to a friend—even one later convicted of crimes—is not defamatory. In 2002, Trump admitted his 15-yr friendship with “terrific guy” Jeffrey Epstein, and in 2016 he admitted the Access Hollywood tape was just his “locker-room banter.” ...
/3