The Justice Department heads to the Supreme Court on Thursday to defend President Donald Trump&#8217;s executive order on birthright citizenship in a case that could have far-reaching implications on activist judges&#8217; ability to hamper Trump&#8217;s agenda. 
While the case, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/daycall/Day%20Call_05-15-25.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Trump v. Casa</a>, revolves around Trump’s day one actions on birthright citizenship, the primary arguments are expected to focus on the power of lone judges to issue universal injunctions that apply to the whole country. The Trump administration has asked the court to rule three nationwide injunctions issued against the birthright citizenship order are only applied to the parties involved and not the whole country. 
“For the first 170 years of American jurisprudence, nationwide injunctions were virtually unknown,&#8221; Solicitor General John Sauer <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A886/354849/20250407110347000_24A886%20Reply.pdf">wrote</a> in an April 7 filing. &#8220;Their use remained sparing until this century, when they saw a dramatic upsurge in 2017, followed by an explosion in the last three months.&#8221;
“These injunctions exceed the district courts’ authority under Article III and gravely encroach on the President’s executive power under Article II. This Court’s intervention is urgently needed to restore the constitutional balance of separated powers,” he added. 
A win for the Trump administration would be significant blow to the Left, which has utilized judges to block much of Trump&#8217;s policies from immigration to efforts to dismantle the sprawling federal bureaucracy.
Sauer will present arguments before the court for about 30 minutes before two lawyers from public and private groups challenging Trump’s order argue for 15 minutes each. The Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of the three injunctions issued against Trump&#8217;s &#8220;Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” executive order.
That executive order directed the government to stop granting citizenship to individuals who were born to people illegally in the country or who were born to people living transiently in the United States. 
During a background call on the case attended by The Daily Wire, a Justice Department official said “the key question” in the case is about “what to do about all these nationwide injunctions.” The official noted that the rash of universal injunctions was &#8220;devastating&#8221; for Trump’s “ability to effectuate the agenda that he was elected to do.”
The official noted that 35 of the 39 total universal injunctions issued against the Trump administration have come from the same five courts: the districts of Massachusetts, Maryland, Washington, D.C., Northern California, and Western Washington.
&#8220;They just shop for the favorable forums in order to drag the executive branch’s policies to a halt,” an official said, adding that the Trump administration would be ready to defend the merits of the birthright citizenship order when and if those arguments came up.
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Wire, that he suspected the Supreme Court decided to take up the case partially in response to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/heres-how-activist-judges-fought-trumps-agenda-in-the-first-100-days" target="_blank" rel="noopener">criticism</a> for not reigning in district court judges in a multitude of other cases.
“The fact that they scheduled oral arguments on this case, past their usual deadline, tells you the importance that the court is attaching to this,” he said, noting the last oral arguments are typically scheduled for the beginning of May. 
Previous rulings from the court, including U.S. v. Mendoza (1984), could provide guidance for the court. In that decision, the court ruled that when a judgment is rendered against the government, courts can only apply judgment to parties in the lawsuit, von Spakovsky said. 
Von Spakovsky said that he expects the justices to focus on the injunction issue, and not the substantive debate after Trump&#8217;s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. He said that a win for the Trump administration could act as a warning to judges to not overstep their activity.
However, a loss he said would even further open up the floodgates of challenges to the administration.
“If the government loses this particular issue, it’s like opening the gates to a rock concert and letting the crowd just rush in without giving tickets,&#8221; he told The Daily Wire. &#8220;It’s going to mean that these judges all over the country can continue to issue these nationwide injunctions against almost any executive order.&#8221;

Supreme Court Continues Busy Week With Cases On Immigration Visas And Starbucks Union

Trump DOJ Asks Supreme Court To Restrain Activist Judges

birthright citizenship

Department of Justice

Donald Trump

Fourteenth Amendment

Illegal Immigation

Supreme Court

One of the most notoriously liberal universities in the country maintains an “environmentalist of color” scholarship program, prompting a formal complaint from an education watchdog group. 
Defending Education on Wednesday filed a complaint with the Education Department alleging that University of California, Berkeley&#8217;s scholarship program violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prevents federal funding from going toward institutions that discriminate on the basis of race.
Defending Education Vice President Sarah Parshall Perry told The Daily Wire that the scholarship was “an express federal financial benefit granted unapologetically to students on the basis of race” in violation of federal law. 
“Eliminating race discrimination means eliminating all of it, as the Supreme Court has noted,” she said. “We look forward to the office for civil rights’s investigation of race discrimination in federally funded programs at UC Berkeley.”
The <a href="https://defendinged.org/complaints/ocr-complaint-university-of-california-berkeley/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">complaint</a> urges the Education Department&#8217;s Office of Civil Rights to open an investigation into the university over the program. UC Berkeley is already under <a href="https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/office-civil-rights-initiates-title-vi-investigations-institutions-of-higher-education-0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">investigation</a> by the Trump administration for potentially racially exclusionary practices in its graduate programs. 
The yearly scholarship criticized in Defending Education&#8217;s complaint — <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20250408145224/https://serc.berkeley.edu/resources/funding/sister-scholarships/environmentalists-color-scholarship" target="_blank" rel="noopener">administered</a> by the Student Environmental Resource Center and funded by the university’s Green Initiative Fund — gives five students who identify as a “person of color” $2,000. 
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/berkeley-tries-to-rebrand-environmentalist-of-color-scholarship-after-legal-complaints" target="_blank" rel="noopener">UPDATE: Berkeley Tries To Rebrand ‘Environmentalist Of Color’ Scholarship After Legal Complaints</a>
Program goals include bridging “institutional gaps in resources and funding for students of color to increase retention, and build radically inclusive social and environmental justice spaces on campus,” financially supporting “passionate students of color working in the environmental field at UC Berkeley,” and “eliminating barriers to entry and focusing on healing, joy, and growth rather than trauma.”
<div id="attachment_904879" style="width: 1959px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-904879" class="size-full wp-image-904879" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Screen-Shot-2025-04-08-at-12.29.59-PM.png" alt="" width="1949" height="570" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Screen-Shot-2025-04-08-at-12.29.59-PM.png 1949w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Screen-Shot-2025-04-08-at-12.29.59-PM-300x88.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Screen-Shot-2025-04-08-at-12.29.59-PM-1024x299.png 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Screen-Shot-2025-04-08-at-12.29.59-PM-768x225.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Screen-Shot-2025-04-08-at-12.29.59-PM-1536x449.png 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 1949px) 100vw, 1949px" />Student Environmental Resource Center.</div>
To qualify for the scholarship, a student must “identify as a POC” and be “passionate about environmentalism,” according to the university. 
The university said that the definition of “person of color” goes beyond skin color, though it is unclear what this means. The university did not respond to requests for comment on whether a white person could be eligible for the award. 
“While navigating the complexities and nuances of this question, SERC recognizes that being a &#8216;person of color&#8217; goes beyond just skin color, and can include an intersectional expanse of racial, ethnic, and cultural experiences and identities. If you identify as a &#8216;person of color,&#8217; we encourage you to apply,&#8221; the Student Environmental Resource Center said. 
The university encourages students to focus on “joy” in their applications for the scholarship. 
“We recognize that BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, Persons-of-Color) are frequently asked to exclusively call upon their experiences with racial trauma and violence in applications,” the university says. “We aim to resist that tokenization by making space for applicants to consider their identities from the lens of radical healing, joy, and growth.”
The Student Environmental Resource Center offers a similar scholarship, called the Brian Gialketsis SERQueer Scholarship, for students who &#8220;identify as queer.” The university specifies that applicants can be “undocumented” or “formerly incarcerated.&#8221;
The goal of the scholarship is to “financially support queer-identifying students working in and passionate about the environmental field at UC Berkeley.”
After the complaint was submitted by Defending Education, the university said that it was looking into the program and would adjust as necessary.
“UC Berkeley is committed to complying with all state and federal laws regarding discrimination and related matters. We are looking into the matter regarding this particular program and if it is out of compliance, we will correct it promptly,” a spokesman for the university said.
President Donald Trump&#8217;s Education Department has warned universities across the country to comply with federal discrimination law and the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision to strike down race-based affirmative action programs. Already, 45 graduate universities are facing probes over racially focused programs.

Tree Hugger

Notoriously Liberal University’s ‘Environmentalist Of Color’ Scholarship Is Illegal, Watchdog Claims

Department of Education

Education

University of California Berkeley

The Justice Department told the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court</a> on Friday that it was dropping its challenge to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/tennessee" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tennessee</a>’s law shielding children from transgender medical procedures.
In a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-477/342223/20250207133625781_Letter%2023-477.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">letter</a> to the clerk of the Supreme Court, Deputy Solicitor General Curtis Gannon said that the DOJ no longer took the position that Tennessee’s SB 1, which banned transgender medical procedures on minors, violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/proponents-of-transgender-procedures-make-shocking-admissions-before-scotus" target="_blank" rel="noopener">heard a challenge</a> to the law in December from both the Biden administration and the ACLU. 
“Following the change in Administration, the Department of Justice has reconsidered the United States’ position in this case,” Gannon wrote. “The purpose of this letter is to notify the Court that the government’s previously stated views no longer represent the United States’ position.”
Tennessee’s law bans procedures like giving minors puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones and performing surgeries like removing the breasts of girls who identify as boys. 
The law was temporarily blocked by a federal judge after it was passed in 2023 before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the law to take effect. 
“The Department has now determined that SB1 does not deny equal protection on account of sex or any other characteristic. Accordingly, the new Administration would not have intervened to challenge SB1 — let alone sought this Court’s review of the court of appeals’ decision reversing the preliminary injunction against SB1,” Gannon wrote. 
While the DOJ&#8217;s challenge to the law may now be moot, the ACLU’s suit against it still stands. Additionally, the DOJ said that it is not seeking to dismiss the case, saying that a “prompt resolution of the question presented will bear on many cases pending in the lower courts.”
After oral arguments on the case in December, the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-appears-poised-to-uphold-tennessee-law-protecting-kids-from-trans-procedures" target="_blank" rel="noopener">appears poised</a> to rule in Tennessee’s favor. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts, and Amy Coney Barrett all seemed skeptical of the claims made by the ACLU and the previous Biden administration. 
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti <a href="https://x.com/AGTennessee/status/1887999361633894663/photo/1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">praised</a> the DOJ for dropping its opposition and noted that the state also welcomed a decision from the court. 
“We commend President Trump for abandoning the previous administration&#8217;s effort to enshrine gender ideology into the Constitution and prevent the people&#8217;s elected officials from resolving these important and contentious issues,” Skrmetti said. “We look forward to receiving much-needed clarity when the Court issues its decision.”

Supreme Court Considers Tennessee’s Ban On Treatments For Transgender Minors

DOJ Ends Challenge To Tennessee’s Law Shielding Kids From Transgender Procedures

ACLU

Biden Administration

Courts

Politics

Tennessee

Transgender

transgender surgery

Transgenders

The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court</a> seems poised to reject a challenge from the Biden administration and the ACLU to Tennessee’s law shielding minors from irreversible transgender procedures, according to comments made by justices <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/proponents-of-transgender-procedures-make-shocking-admissions-before-scotus" target="_blank" rel="noopener">during oral arguments</a> on Wednesday.
Throughout oral arguments on Wednesday morning, the conservative justices were skeptical of arguments from U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and the ACLU, who argued that Tennessee’s law violated the 14th Amendment. The law prevents doctors from giving children puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, which come with a variety of long-term health risks.
Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito strongly pushed back against Prelogar and the ACLU, with Alito pointing to data contradicting claims that transgender procedures were necessary to keep kids from committing suicide. Alito also pointed to recent decisions in the United Kingdom to restrict transgender procedures for minors.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts also seemed hesitant to weigh in against Tennessee.
&#8220;It strikes me as a pretty heavy yellow light, if not red light, for this court to come in, the nine of us, and to constitutionalize the whole area, when the rest of the world, or at least the people who the countries that have been at the forefront of this, are pumping the brakes on this kind of treatment,&#8221; Kavanaugh said.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1732727087136000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3Ao27zcTCGutKhTz_xpaKC">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE</a>
Both Kavanaugh and Roberts said that it seemed like it might be best to leave the issue to the states.
&#8220;If the Constitution doesn&#8217;t take sides, if there&#8217;s strong, forceful, scientific policy arguments on both sides in a situation like this, why isn&#8217;t it best to leave it to the democratic process?&#8221; Kavanaugh asked.
&#8220;We&#8217;re not the best situated to address issues like that,&#8221; Roberts said. &#8220;Doesn&#8217;t that make a stronger case for us to leave those determinations to the legislative bodies rather than try to determine them for ourselves?&#8221;
The liberal justices on the court, including Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, both seemed like they would move to strike down Tennessee&#8217;s law. Jackson tried to compare the law to old laws that prevented interracial marriage.
Headlines from the legacy media predicted that the law would be upheld. NBC News <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-tackles-state-bans-treatments-transgender-youth-rcna182517">wrote</a>, “Supreme Court skeptical of challenge to Tennessee ban on transgender youth treatments,” while CNN <a href="https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/scotus-transgender-care-ban-12-04-24/index.html">wrote</a>, “During arguments, SCOTUS conservative majority appears ready to endorse Tennessee law.”

Transgender Rights Face Test At Supreme Court Over State Bans Of Youth Care

Supreme Court Appears Poised To Uphold Tennessee Law Protecting Kids From Trans Procedures

U.S.

A group of Christian pro-life pregnancy resource centers and organizations have filed a lawsuit against New York Attorney General <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/letitia-james" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Letitia James</a> after she threatened to sue them over allegations of false advertising. 
The coalition, represented by the Thomas More Society, filed the lawsuit against James on Tuesday, accusing her of violating the pro-life groups&#8217; First and Fourteenth Amendment rights as well as the New York state constitution. The suit comes after James sent a <a href="https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/63d954d4e4ad424df7819d46/6630189e82604e77bd5451e0_Notice%20to%20CompassCare.pdf">letter</a> on April 22 to a dozen pro-life ministries accusing them of “repeated and persistent misleading statements and omissions” related to their support of the Abortion Pill Reversal protocol. 
“James’ salvos against Plaintiff’s are the latest development in her politically motivated campaign against pregnancy organizations in general,” the lawsuit from the pregnancy organization <a href="https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/63d954d4e4ad424df7819d46/66316c6cc9866f5cee7cda47_E2024007242_HEARTBEAT_INTERNATIONA_v_HEARTBEAT_INTERNATIONA_COMPLAINT_2.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">says</a>. “This time, James targets Plaintiff’s protected speech and activities engaged in for the sole benefit of pregnant women who have ingested — whether voluntarily or via trick or force — mifepristone, the first pill of the two-pill chemical abortion regimen, but wish to continue their pregnancies.” 
The Abortion Pill Reversal protocol is a method <a href="https://lozierinstitute.org/abortion-pill-reversal-a-record-of-safety-and-efficacy/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">backed</a> by pro-life organizations where a woman can take a prescribed dose of bioidentical progesterone to potentially reverse the effects of mifepristone if she changes her mind at the last minute about going through with the abortion. 
“Defendant James has no business butting into the intimate medical decision of an expectant mother, in consultation with the medical professional of her choice, to carry her pregnancy to term and save her unborn baby from the disastrous effects of mifepristone while there is still time to undo the effects of that powerful chemical,” the lawsuit adds. 
One of the plaintiffs in the case, Heartbeat International, is an organization that helps facilitate access to the Abortion Pill Reversal protocol. 
“New York State laws protect abortionists and abortion on demand up until birth,” said Jor-El Godsey, the president of Heartbeat International. “Now they are targeting those who assist a woman in exercising her right to continue her own pregnancy. It is unconscionable to see the abortion industry and its paid-for politicians go so far as to insist she complete an abortion she no longer wants.”
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
The organizations are demanding that the court block James from initiating a lawsuit against them and that it declares that James’s notice to the pro-life group violated their rights. The case was filed in the Supreme Court of New York in Monroe County. 
“This is a political witch-hunt against small nonprofits that have selflessly served New York’s pregnant women and their children for over 50 years,” said Thomas More Society Executive Vice President Peter Breen. “Letitia James should be heralding these charities, not launching outrageously false claims against them under laws that don’t apply to their noncommercial speech.”
Pregnancy centers around the country have come under fire from Democrat lawmakers and pro-abortion activists after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Donald Trump Found Guilty In Civil Fraud Case, Fined Over $300 Million

New York AG Letitia James Challenged Over Her ‘Political Witch-Hunt’ Against Pro-Life Groups

Abortion

First Amendment

Letitia James

New York

Pro-Life Movement

Roe v. Wade's Long And Brutal Legacy

Donald Trump won big at the Supreme Court on Monday. The Supreme Court voted unanimously that Colorado could not toss him off their ballot for the presidency. 
A couple of months ago, the Supreme Court in Colorado decided it was perfectly acceptable to invalidate Donald Trump on the ballot in Colorado in the primaries of the general election because he was an “insurrectionist.” 
The basic premise of their argument was truly inane, claiming that because the Constitution of the United States bars insurrectionists from office, the state government of Colorado could simply declare Trump an insurrectionist and then toss him off the ballot.  
That claim had many legal problems. One: how do you define “insurrectionist”? Two: Even if you were going to define “insurrectionist,” that would theoretically have to be done at the federal level, not the state level. Three: How do you even define “insurrectionist” in terms of which party defines it in the federal government? Is that done by some sort of election board? Is it done by the legislature? How does the insurrectionist clause distinguish itself from, for example, issues with age? A state could theoretically throw someone off the ballot if they were not 35-years-old but still running for president, saying simply that this person was not eligible and, therefore, does not get listed on the ballot. But that would be pretty obvious from the federal language.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1917-unanimous-supreme-court-puts-trump-back-on-the-ballot-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h4>
On Monday, the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a>:
<blockquote>Proposed by Congress in 1866 and ratified by the States in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment “expand[ed] federal power at the expense of state autonomy” and thus “fundamentally altered the balance of state and federal power struck by the Constitution.” … Section 1 of the Amendment, for instance, bars the States from “depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” or “deny[ing] to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws.” And Section 5 confers on Congress “power to enforce” those prohibitions, along with the other provisions of the Amendment, “by appropriate legislation.” 
Section 3 of the Amendment likewise restricts state autonomy, but through different means. It was designed to help ensure an enduring Union by preventing former Confederates from returning to power in the aftermath of the Civil War. … Section 3 aimed to prevent such a resurgence by barring from office “those who, having once taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, afterward went into rebellion against the Government of the United States.” 
Section 3 works by imposing on certain individuals a preventive and severe penalty—disqualification from holding a wide array of offices—rather than by granting rights to all. It is therefore necessary, as Chief Justice Chase concluded and the Colorado Supreme Court itself recognized, to “‘ascertain[] what particular individuals are embraced’” by the provision. … Chase went on to explain that “[t]o accomplish this ascertainment and ensure effective results, proceedings, evidence, decisions, and enforcements of decisions, more or less formal, are indispensable.” … For its part, the Colorado Supreme Court also concluded that there must be some kind of “determination” that Section 3 applies to a particular person “before the disqualification holds meaning.” 
The Constitution empowers Congress to prescribe how those determinations should be made. </blockquote>
So they have said that under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, it should be Congress defining who is an insurrectionist and who is not. They say Congress’ Section 5 power is critical when it comes to Section 3.
<blockquote>This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency. </blockquote>
The court is making two separate arguments. Argument number one is that only Congress can define the word “insurrectionist” for purposes of who gets on the ballot and who does not. Argument number two is that even if that were not the case, the states do not have the capacity to do that. So theoretically, a different part of the federal government could actually create an enforcement mechanism that wasn&#8217;t the legislature. But states don&#8217;t have any power to enforce Section 3 with regard to federal offices, especially the presidency.
The court goes on to state, “Such power over governance, however, does not extend to federal officeholders and candidates. Because federal officers ‘owe their existence and functions to the united voice of the whole, not of a portion, of the people,’ powers over their election and qualifications must be specifically ‘delegated to, rather than reserved by, the States.’” 
Ultimately, there were two arguments made: that it can only be Congress that determines who is an insurrectionist and who is not, and that states cannot simply toss people out for federal office because that&#8217;s the federal government&#8217;s job.
<h4><a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a></h4>
Although all nine members of the court agreed with the result, a slight dissent on sort of the rationale came from the liberal justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. That dissent was written specifically to create a sideshow of controversy — because there really was no controversy. Everyone agreed Colorado couldn’t just toss Trump off the ballot.
But the minority opinion here, concurring in judgment, tried to find a point of differentiation from the majority opinion specifically so they could say that the majority opinion was overreaching in favor of Trump. They agreed that allowing Colorado to simply declare who can and can&#8217;t be on the ballot would violate the Constitution of the United States. 
But the Court also stated:
<blockquote>Yet the majority goes further. Even though ‘[a]ll nine Members of the Court’ agree that this independent and sufficient rationale resolves this case, five Justices go on. They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy. … Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so. The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment. </blockquote>
Basically, what they have said is that the conservative majority on the Court did this for Trump. What&#8217;s weird is that they&#8217;re claiming the Supreme Court majority went beyond its remit in order to help Trump, presumably because they think that if Congress were run by Democrats, a simple piece of legislation not defining insurrection, but just saying Donald Trump cannot run because he is an insurrectionist, might be sufficient.
In the end, the bottom line is what Amy Coney Barrett stated: This is 9-0. We&#8217;re done here.

Donald Trump Holds Primary Night Event In Columbia, SC

Trump Wins Big At The Supreme Court

2024 Election

Ben Shapiro

Colorado

Opinion

Readers Pass

A federal judge this week blocked an <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/idaho" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Idaho</a> law protecting kids from transgender surgeries, claiming that it likely violated the 14th Amendment. 
Federal Judge B. Lynn Winmill temporarily blocked the enactment of an Idaho law passed earlier this year that bans procedures like double mastectomies on girls who identify as boys and giving children puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador said that he would immediately challenge the ruling, which blocks the law until a lawsuit filed against the law is resolved. 
“The federal judiciary once endorsed the eugenics movement and forced sterilization of intellectually disabled people. Similarly, Judge Winmill’s ruling places children at risk of irreversible harm. History will not look kindly at this decision. We are taking immediate action to appeal this decision and are confident that correction will come. I will never stop fighting for and protecting our most vulnerable children,” Labrador <a href="https://www.ag.idaho.gov/newsroom/attorney-general-responds-to-court-blocking-idahos-vulnerable-child-protection-act/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in a statement. 
Winmill <a href="https://idahocapitalsun.com/2023/12/27/judge-temporarily-blocks-enforcement-of-idaho-law-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-youth/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sided</a> with two families with children after they sued the state to stop enforcement of the law, under which doctors could face up to ten years in prison for giving children life-altering transgender surgeries or hormonal procedures. 
“Time and again, these cases illustrate that the 14th Amendment’s primary role is to protect disfavored minorities and preserve our fundamental rights from legislative overreach,” Winmill said. “That was true for newly freed slaves following the Civil War. It was true in the 20th century for women, people of color, inter-racial couples, and individuals seeking access to contraception. And it is no less true for transgender children and their parents in the 21st century.”
The judge said that his decision was not “anti-democratic” because the 14th Amendment was intended to stop laws that violated equal protection. 
“The authors of the 14th Amendment fully understood and intended that the amendment would prevent state legislatures from passing laws that denied equal protection of the laws or invaded the fundamental rights of the people,” Winmill said. 
The <a href="https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2023/legislation/H0071.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">law prohibits</a> surgeries “that sterilize or mutilate, or artificially construct tissue with the appearance of genitalia that differs from the child&#8217;s biological sex” as well as the removal of the breasts of girls who identify as boys. Additionally, it blocks the administration of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones, which can impact bone development, fertility, and heart health.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1703684399691000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0m2xSiGF1JK_f4B43pJkSz">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
In a statement, the ACLU of Idaho, which helped back the lawsuit, celebrated the decision. 
“This judicial decision is a much-needed ray of hope for trans people amid a years-long onslaught against their rights to access health care and ability to navigate the world around them. Everyone should be free to live and thrive in their authentic identity, which means transgender people should not be shut out of accessing medically sound health care,” ACLU of Idaho executive director Leo Morales said. 
Over 20 states across the country have passed legislation shielding kids from transgender procedures. While some judges have blocked implementation of the measures, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/federal-appeals-court-upholds-tennessee-kentuckys-bans-on-transgender-treatments-for-children" target="_blank" rel="noopener">upheld</a> Tennessee’s law earlier this year.

Hand of nurse preparing arranging medical surgical tools on tray wearing latex gloves protective workwear for safety in surgery operation room in hospital with medical professional doctor nurse

Judge Blocks Idaho Law Protecting Kids From Transgender Procedures

Idaho

Democrat Governor <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/gavin-newsom" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gavin Newsom</a> criticized a proposal to kick former President <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/donald-trump" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Donald Trump</a> off the ballot in California days after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the former president could not be on the ballot in the Centennial State. 
Newsom claimed on Friday that Trump was a threat to democracy, but indicated that he did not support Lt. Governor Eleni Kounalakis’ request to California’s secretary of state to follow Colorado and move to kick Trump off the ballot. Newsom has been accused of running a shadow presidential campaign and has been seen as a potential option for Democrats should President Joe Biden step out of the 2024 race. 
“There is no doubt that Donald Trump is a threat to our liberties and even to our democracy,” Newsom <a href="https://nypost.com/2023/12/23/news/gavin-newsom-slams-effort-to-block-trump-on-california-ballot/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>. “But in California, we defeat candidates at the polls. Everything else is a political distraction.”
On Tuesday, the Colorado Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-blasts-co-supreme-court-ruling-banning-him-from-ballot-banana-republic" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruled</a> that Trump is disqualified from becoming president again for “inciting the crowd that breached the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021,” which the court said violated Section 3 of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, known as the insurrection clause.
Following the ruling, Kounalakis <a href="https://nypost.com/2023/12/20/news/california-next-to-push-for-trump-ballot-removal-after-colorado-ruling/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">asked</a> California Secretary of State Shirley Weber to move to kick Trump off the ballot.
“I urge you to explore every legal option to remove former President Donald Trump from California’s 2024 presidential primary ballot,” Kounalakis said. “This decision is about honoring the rule of law in our country and protecting the fundamental pillars of our democracy.”
“There will be the inevitable political punditry about a decision to remove Trump from the ballot, but this is not a matter of political gamesmanship. This is a dire matter that puts at stake the sanctity of our constitution and our democracy,” Kounalakis added. 
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
In her letter, Kounalakis mistakenly said that the age requirement for president was 40 when the actual age requirement is 35.
Trump has promised to challenge the ruling and called on Biden’s Justice Department to stop pursuing the other prosecutions targeting him. 
“BIDEN SHOULD DROP ALL OF THESE FAKE POLITICAL INDICTMENTS AGAINST ME, BOTH CRIMINAL &amp; CIVIL. EVERY CASE I AM FIGHTING IS THE WORK OF THE DOJ &amp; WHITE HOUSE. NO SUCH THING HAS EVER HAPPENED IN OUR COUNTRY BEFORE. BANANA REPUBLIC??? ELECTION INTERFERENCE!!!” Trump <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111612799689559392" target="_blank" rel="noopener">posted</a> on Wednesday morning.
Similar efforts to kick Trump off the ballot have been attempted in Minnesota and Michigan.

California Governor Newsom Announces New Gun Safety Legislation After String Of Mass Shootings In The State

Newsom Criticizes Proposal To Kick Trump Off Ballot In California

California

Gavin Newsom

On Tuesday evening, the Supreme Court of Colorado ruled that President Donald J. Trump had to be removed from the state ballot, for both the primaries and the general election. They cited the Fourteenth Amendment, Section Three of the Constitution of the United States, which <a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reads</a> as follows:
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
The case made by the 4-3 majority in favor of barring President Trump from the ballot is simple: They say that Trump tried to conduct an insurrection in their judgment, and thus can be barred from the ballot by their say-so. “Congress does not need to pass implementing legislation for Section Three’s disqualification provision to attach,” <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">says</a> the Court, and “Section Three is, in that sense, self-executing.” In other words, so long as Section Three says that insurrectionists are disqualified from office, that means that Congress need not sound off on just what insurrectionists are. State courts can do it. 
What’s more, the Court says that the Constitution authorizes states to determine the “constitutional qualifications of presidential candidates” because, otherwise, states would be unable to “exclude a twenty-eight-year-old, a non-resident of the United States, or even a foreign national from the presidential primary ballot in Colorado.”
The Court says it is qualified to determine who is guilty of “insurrection” under the Fourteenth Amendment without any criminal case or impeachment case. The Court continues, saying, “that the events of January 6 constituted an insurrection and that President Trump engaged in that insurrection.” The Court claims, “President Trump’s direct and express efforts, over several months, exhorting his supporters to march to the Capitol to prevent what he falsely characterized as an alleged fraud on the people of this country were indisputably overt and voluntary. Moreover, the evidence amply showed that President Trump undertook all these actions to aid and further a common unlawful purpose that he himself conceived and set in motion: prevent Congress from certifying the 2020 presidential election and stop the peaceful transfer of power.”
This reading is, to put it mildly, strained.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1873-breaking-trump-barred-from-colorado-ballot-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h4>
Section Three was designed to prohibit those who had served in the Confederacy from holding public office in the United States. The Confederacy, as we know, was an armed rebellion against the United States which ended in the deaths of some 600,000 Americans on both sides. 
It was unclear when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed whether it was designed to apply to any future rebellion or insurrection, or whether it was supposed to apply to presidential candidates or those seeking to qualify as such, or exactly how it would be effectuated — by states, by Congress, or by some other party. 
Just two months ago, Kurt Lash, author of “The Fourteenth Amendment” and professor of law at Richmond School of Law published an essay about Section Three, <a href="https://lawliberty.org/the-fourteenth-amendments-ambiguous-section-three/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">writing</a>, “The omission of express language on these issues is significant because prior publicly announced drafts did expressly apply to present and future rebellions, did expressly name the office of the President of the United States, and did expressly bar certain persons from either holding or qualifying for office.” What does this mean? It means that at the very least, the amendment didn’t mean to clearly bar presidential candidates in future elections who took part in future “insurrections.”
Most importantly, the amendment is totally unclear on exactly how it is supposed to be effectuated. Representative Thaddeus Stevens, one of the most radical Republicans of the time, said that the text would “not execute itself” — that Congress would have to pass laws making clear who was barred from office. 
Historically, Congress was generally the enforcement mechanism for this provision. In 1872, for example, Congress passed the Amnesty Act, which did away with penalties on former Confederates due to the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress itself passed a law in 1994 that made it a crime to “assist or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States,” so presumably, a conviction for such a crime would automatically disqualify a candidate from office under Section Three. 
Even if the amendment were self-effectuating — which it likely is not, given this would create a massive incentive for states to randomly disqualify candidates they don’t like under its auspices — it would still require the state to prove Trump engaged in insurrection. As Chief Justice Brian Boatright says, “Age, time previously served as president, and place of birth all parallel core qualification issues under Colorado’s election code. Conversely, all these questions pale in comparison to the complexity of an action to disqualify a candidate for engaging in insurrection.” Barring Trump from the ballot without an actual trial for guilt or innocence — or even an enactment from Congress — seems to violate basic due process principles, as Justice Carlos Samour points out in dissent: “based on its interpretation of Section Three, our court sanctions these makeshift proceedings employed by the district court below — which lacked basic discovery, the ability to subpoena documents and compel witnesses, workable timeframes to adequately investigate and develop defenses, and the opportunity for a fair trial—to adjudicate a federal constitutional claim (a complicated one at that) masquerading as a run-of-the-mill state Election Code claim.”
This case is wrongly decided. The good news is that its effect is stayed until January 4, the day before ballot eligibility must be set; if Trump appeals, which he has already pledged to do, the stay remains in effect indefinitely.
But that’s not the point.
The point is that the use of lawfare against Donald J. Trump is absolutely unprecedented. It radically undermines electoral integrity, creating an ad hoc way for political opponents within each state to bar candidates they don’t like through reinterpretation of the Constitution.
And, of course, this Colorado State Supreme Court ruling is merely the latest iteration of lawfare against President Trump. It&#8217;s certainly true that Trump opened himself to this legal hellstorm with his activities leading up to and on January 6 and his handling of classified material after his presidency. He had to know there was a giant target on his back, and as always, he did what he wanted. 
But that doesn’t mean he isn’t being targeted by a variety of perverse methods — methods that threaten the future peace of the republic in serious ways. 
There are four outstanding criminal cases against Trump, three of which are rooted in misinterpretation of statute, and the fourth of which concerns mishandling of classified documents — a matter for which Trump’s former rival, Hillary Clinton, was let off the hook. Furthermore, the prosecutor in Trump’s January 6 criminal prosecution, Jack Smith, is openly attempting to cram through that criminal trial before the election, specifically in order to damage Trump’s chances in the election.
<h3><a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a></h3>
As Andy McCarthy <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/12/the-obstruction-charges-that-may-derail-trumps-election-interference-trial/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">writes</a>, “The prosecutor’s proposed schedule is driven by the political calendar, not law-enforcement concerns. … The Biden Justice Department took nearly three years to charge Trump, even though the facts by then were well-established; the indictment was strategically timed so a trial could take place during the presidential campaign. Not only did Smith push to force Trump to trial in just a few months after Smith’s own investigators had taken years; the prosecutor indicted in Washington, D.C., only after locking Trump into yet another complex criminal trial in another district a thousand miles away (south Florida).”
What does all this mean?
It means that 2024 is going to be the most insane and ugly presidential election in American history. And that’s saying a lot, since 1968 and 2020 are both years that existed. Already, partisan use of the judicial process to stop Trump has created a narrative for Trump that even should he lose, he will have been cheated — and he won’t be entirely wrong. In fact, if he is barred from ballots and his trial expedited to affect the election, he’ll be right.
Meanwhile, because the supposedly apolitical judicial branch has now signed into this fight on behalf of Joe Biden, Democrats are likely to think that Trump is not just morally but legally barred from office. Under what circumstances, precisely, would Democrats accept the result of a Trump election?
The weaponization of the legal system creates an all-consuming fire, burning everything in its path. There is simply no 2024 result likely to result in anything but complete — and perhaps violent — chaos at this point.

Former President Trump Holds Rally In Waterloo, Iowa

Trump Barred From Colorado Ballot

Republican Primary

A judge in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/colorado" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Colorado</a> has rejected a challenge filed by a Left-leaning group to remove former President <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/donald-trump" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Donald Trump</a> from the state&#8217;s 2024 presidential primary ballot under the 14th Amendment. 
On Friday, Colorado Judge Sarah B. Wallace <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruled</a> that Trump could not be kicked off the ballot in the state because the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment did not apply to the presidency. The challenge in Colorado was <a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055" target="_blank" rel="noopener">filed</a> by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington on behalf of six Colorado voters. 
“Part of the court’s decision is its reluctance to embrace an interpretation which would disqualify a presidential candidate without a clear, unmistakable indication that such is the intent of Section 3,” Wallace wrote. The ruling comes after similar efforts to block Trump from appearing on state ballots <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/michigan-judge-dismisses-14th-amendment-challenge-against-trump" target="_blank" rel="noopener">failed in Michigan</a> and Minnesota. 
Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/17/us/politics/colorado-trump-14th-amendment.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> that the ruling was another nail in the coffin for the efforts to make Trump ineligible to run for office. 
“We applaud today’s ruling in Colorado, which is another nail in the coffin of the un-American ballot challenges,” Cheung said. “These cases represent the most cynical and blatant political attempts to interfere with the upcoming presidential election by desperate Democrats who know Crooked Joe Biden is a failed president on the fast track to defeat.”
Wallace did rule that the Capitol riot was an “insurrection” and claimed that Trump meant to “incite political violence.” 
“Trump acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol with the purpose of disrupting the electoral certification,” Wallace wrote. “Trump cultivated a culture that embraced political violence through his consistent endorsement of the same.”
Mario Nicolais, a lawyer for the group who challenged Trump’s eligibility, said that the group planned on appealing. 
“The court found that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection after a careful and thorough review of the evidence,” Nicolais said. “We are very pleased with the opinion and look forward to addressing the sole legal issue on appeal, namely whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applies to insurrectionist presidents. We believe that it does.”
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/black-friday-gift-guide" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.dailywire.com/news/black-friday-gift-guide&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700275166814000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0_FgIWtLXx8w2fSdMb8L-V">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE BLACK FRIDAY SHOPPING GUIDE</a>
Trump, currently the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican nomination, has risen above President Joe Biden in polling from recent crucial swing states. 
The ruling from Wallace came the same day that House Speaker Mike Johnson <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/speaker-johnson-announces-public-release-of-january-6-footage" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> that he would be making footage from January 6 publicly available for everyone to view. 
Much of the footage that was previously made available focused on protester clashes with police while widely shared footage from Friday&#8217;s drop showed people walking down a hallway past law enforcement in an orderly fashion and even waving to officers.

WASHINGTON, DC – OCTOBER 30: President Donald Trump talks to me

Judge Rejects Effort To Kick Trump Off Ballot In Colorado Under 14th Amendment

Elections

January 6

Joe Biden

The Minnesota Supreme Court <a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-election-president-f6b72c94bb351c1b870d4884e54f6a75" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reportedly</a> dismissed a legal challenge from a left-wing group to block former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 primary ballot using a constitutional provision known as the “insurrection clause.”
The state’s high court dismissed the lawsuit brought by Free Speech For People, who <a href="https://freespeechforpeople.org/the-14point3-campaign/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">allege</a> Trump &#8220;incited hundreds of violent insurrectionists to storm the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021,&#8221; in a so-called effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
The group turned to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies anyone from running for office who had previously taken an oath of office who then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
But the state’s high court blocked the group’s effort by reportedly ruling that the state law allows political parties to put anyone they want on a primary ballot.
“There is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who is ineligible to hold office,” Chief Justice Natalie Hudson ruled.
However, the court’s ruling only applies to the state’s primary ballot and left open the possibility that the plaintiffs could make another attempt to block Trump from appearing on the general election ballot in November 2024.
Free Speech For People has not yet publicly commented on the ruling.
Trump took to his social media platform on Wednesday, celebrating the court’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
“Ridiculous 14th Amendment lawsuit just thrown out by Minnesota Supreme Court,” Trump <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111377205337385444" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>. “Congratulations to all who fought this HOAX!”
In response to the ruling, Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said in part: &#8220;Today’s decision in Minnesota, like New Hampshire before it, is further validation of the Trump Campaign’s consistent argument that the 14th Amendment ballot challenges are nothing more than strategic, un-Constitutional attempts to interfere with the election by desperate Democrats who see the writing on the wall: President Trump is dominating the polls and has never been in a stronger position to end the failed Biden presidency next November.&#8221;
Efforts to remove Trump from state ballots in the next presidential election have been appearing in a series of lawsuits nationwide from critics of the leading Republican contender.
U.S. officials ratified the Amendment in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War during the Reconstruction Era, which was designed to represent a new birth of freedom for previously disenfranchised citizens, according to Cornell University’s Legal Information Institute.
Trump has criticized the lawsuits as “frivolous,” claiming that “radical Democrat dark money groups” fund the legal challenges to interfere with his attempt to retake the White House in 2025.
Trump’s attorneys have reportedly argued that the “insurrection clause” lacks power without Congressional review of how to apply it, noting that the U.S. Capitol breach doesn’t meet the definition of insurrection and that the former president only used his First Amendment right of freedom of speech.
His attorneys also pointed out that the clause does not apply to the office of the presidency because it’s not mentioned in the text.
Other groups in Michigan and Colorado have also brought similar <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/removing-trump-from-2024-ballot-would-reinforce-voter-grievances-about-elections-ga-sec-of-state-says" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuits</a> against Trump. Lawyers for former President Donald Trump filed a lawsuit on Monday seeking to counter an attempt to bar him from the 2024 presidential ballot in Michigan.
Trump&#8217;s lawyers filed a lawsuit on Monday seeking to counter an attempt to bar him from the 2024 presidential ballot in Michigan.
But Colorado became the first state last month to bring its challenge to trial under the constitutional measure — which has rarely been used over the last 150 years. A state judge reportedly scheduled closing arguments for next week.
Legal experts reportedly expect the issue to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Minnesota Supreme Court Dismisses ‘Insurrection Clause’ Challenge To Keep Trump Off State’s Primary Ballot: Report

Minnesota Supreme Court Dismisses ‘Insurrection Clause’ Challenge To Keep Trump Off State's Primary Ballot

Constitution

Minnesota

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger believes invoking the 14th Amendment to prevent former President Donald Trump from seeking a second term in the White House would only reinforce voter grievances about the U.S. election process.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/efforts-to-remove-trump-from-2024-ballot-using-14th-amendment-ramp-up-report" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Efforts to remove Trump</a> from state ballots in the 2024 presidential election are ramping up nationwide after critics argued the leading Republican contender is constitutionally disqualified from serving as president for allegedly engaging in &#8220;insurrection&#8221; against the United States.
Opponents across the political spectrum of the former president argue that under the U.S. Constitution&#8217;s 14th Amendment, Trump is barred from holding office ever again after the January 6 Capitol breach.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-campaign-blasts-lawsuit-to-bar-candidate-from-co-ballot-absurd-conspiracy-theory" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuit</a> on Wednesday to remove Trump from the ballot in Colorado under the 14th Amendment, accusing the former president of violating Section 3, which bars anyone from running for office who had previously taken an oath of office, then &#8220;engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.&#8221;
But in an <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-cant-keep-trump-off-the-ballot-georgia-sec-state-14th-amendment-c1017ede" target="_blank" rel="noopener">op-ed</a> to The Wall Street Journal published Wednesday, Raffensperger pushed back against such efforts, arguing that &#8220;grievances of those who see the system as rigged and corrupt&#8221; would only be exacerbated if a secretary of state removed a candidate from a state ballot and &#8220;erode the belief in our uniquely American representative democracy.&#8221;
&#8220;Denying voters the opportunity to choose is fundamentally un-American,&#8221; he wrote. &#8220;Since our founding, Americans have believed that a government is just when it has earned the consent of the governed. Taking away the ability to choose—or object to—the eligibility of candidates eliminates that consent for slightly less than half of the country.&#8221;
Raffensberger and Trump became embroiled in a controversy after the 2020 presidential election after The Washington Post released a phone conversation between the two officials where the president reportedly &#8220;pressured&#8221; the official to &#8220;find&#8221; the votes necessary for him to win the state.
However, the Georgia official still argues disqualifying a candidate under such a measure is the &#8220;newest way of attempting to short-circuit the ballot box&#8221; and that the outcome should be determined by the American people who vote in the primaries and the general election.
&#8220;Since 2018, Georgia has seen losing candidates and their lawyers try to sue their way to victory. It doesn&#8217;t work,&#8221; Raffensperger said. &#8220;Stacey Abrams&#8217;s claims of election mismanagement following the 2018 election were rejected in court, as were Mr. Trump&#8217;s after the 2020 election.&#8221;
The Trump campaign called a lawsuit seeking to ban the former president from the ballot in Colorado a political attack based on an &#8220;absurd conspiracy theory.&#8221;
&#8220;The people who are pursuing this absurd conspiracy theory and political attack on President Trump are stretching the law beyond recognition,&#8221; campaign spokesman Steven Cheung told ABC News in a statement. &#8220;There is no legal basis for this effort except in the minds of those who are pushing it.&#8221;

Georgia’s Secretary Of State Holds News Conference On Election Ballot Count

Removing Trump From 2024 Ballot Would Reinforce Voter ‘Grievances’ About Elections, GA Sec Of State Says

2024

Brad Raffensperger

Georgia

Menu