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 Trump Campaign declines to share his list with me, but that probably includes ≥ 14 withdrawn lawsuits ...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
On Friday, in a 34-page unanimous ruling, the 1st Circuit denied govt a stay of Judge Young’s July 2 order declaring NIH’s cancellation of 100s of research contracts as “breathtakingly arbitrary & capricious.” Some interesting things...
If you recall, Judge Young found that DOGE had “force-fed” the cancellations to NIH, drafting cancellation letters, which no NIH scientist reviewed & which the NIH director approved “within [2] minutes”. ...
/2
DOGE’s template cancellation letter left blanks to be filled from a “reason-for-termination menu,” listing topics like “DEI,” “China,” “Transgender Issues,” “Climate Change.” Use of the menu was “mandatory.” ...
/3
A thread about DOJ’s astoundingly misleading responses to the 27-page Reuveni letter (since backed by 150pp of corroborating texts/emails) alleging conduct approaching contempt in 3 cases: JGG, Abrego, DVD.
Let’s examine @DAGToddBlanche’s & @AGPamBondi’s responses. ...
1/9
Reuveni’s letter says 5 others (but not Blanche) were at the 3/14/25 meeting where Bove allegedly said they “would need to consider” telling courts “fuck you.” In Blanche's denial, he claims he was present for whole meeting—but it appears he wasn’t. ...
/2
“I was at the meeting,” Blanche writes. But Blanche only poked his head in & left, Reuveni told NYT. Tellingly, Bove testified to Senate *not* that Blanche was present, but that Blanche *said* he was present. ...
/3
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