Roger Parloff Profile picture
Jan 5, 2024 12 tweets 4 min read Read on X
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 Image
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 Image
@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 Image
@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 Image
@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 Image
@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 Trump Campaign declines to share his list with me, but that probably includes ≥ 14 withdrawn lawsuits ...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 Image
@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
 

Keep Current with Roger Parloff

Roger Parloff Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @rparloff

Jan 2
Accused J6 pipebomber Brian Cole is claiming that he is entitled to release due to govt’s failure to obtain within the allotted time period either a proper grand jury indictment or a judge’s probable cause finding after a “preliminary hearing.” Odd situation. ...
1/10
Under Federal Rules, absent defense consent or “extraordinary circumstances,” you can’t detain someone > 14 days without a finding of probable cause, either by indictment or public preliminary hearing. Prosecutors prefer indictments because they’re secret. ...
/2 Image
Cole has been in custody since 12/4 on a criminal complaint. His initial appearance was 12/5. The mag judge set a detention hearing for 12/15, but didn’t mention a preliminary hearing. Seems like everyone assumed the govt would indict Cole by 12/15—but it didn’t. ...
/3
Read 11 tweets
Dec 31, 2025
Re USA v Abrego Garcia: A quick summary of what Judge Crenshaw’s newly unsealed order from 12/3 shows & means: He reviewed ~3,000 govt documents in chambers. Most were irrelevant, but he ordered a few dozen key ones turned over to defense. ...
1/7
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
US Atty McGuire had previously sworn that he alone decided to indict Abrego Garcia. But emails show, per Crenshaw, that @DAGToddBlanche's Office told McGuire that indicting was a “top priority”; they wanted it “sooner rather than later”; & they even oversaw its content. ...
2/7 Image
... Abrego’s vindictiveness claim hinges on timing. For 3 years the govt took no steps to charge him for his 11/30/22 traffic stop. It sent him to CECOT on 3/15/25 &, on 4/1/25, closed his arrest file. ...
3/7
Read 7 tweets
Dec 23, 2025
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 Image
Image
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 Image
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
Read 5 tweets
Dec 22, 2025
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 Image
Image
... 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 Image
Read 4 tweets
Dec 1, 2025
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 Image
Image
... 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 Image
Image
... 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 Image
Image
Read 4 tweets
Oct 15, 2025
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 Image
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 Image
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(