Lawyers for former President Donald Trump formally ask the United States Supreme Court to rule on the decision by Colorado’s Supreme Court to remove his name from primary ballots because he was in violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In New York, meanwhile, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rules against Trump’s request for a review of its earlier decision that presidential immunity claims do not protect him from being sued by columnist E. Jean Carroll. Here are the latest developments in the legal cases involving the man who hopes to be reelected to the White House in 2024.
Jan. 6 election interference
Trump takes Colorado Supreme Court ballot ruling to U.S. Supreme Court
Key players: Colorado Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court
Trump’s lawyers asked the high court on Wednesday to intervene on the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to remove his name from primary ballots in that state, Reuters reported.
The Colorado Supreme Court’s 4-3 ruling on Dec. 19, 2023, cited Section Three of the 14th Amendment, which bars those who have participated in “insurrection or rebellion” against the government from holding office.
“President Trump asks us to hold that Section Three disqualifies every oath-breaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land. Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section Three,” the majority opinion stated.
Trump has also appealed to the high court a decision by Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, who also cited the 14th Amendment when deciding to bar Trump’s name from appearing on ballots there.
Why it matters: Trump appointed three of the Supreme Court’s nine judges, and a growing number of issues facing the former president are heading to their docket.
E. Jean Carroll civil defamation
Appeals court panel rejects Trump request for full review of presidential immunity decision in civil lawsuit
Key players: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Judges Jose A. Cabranes, Denny Chin and Maria Araujo Kahn, columnist E. Jean Carroll, United States Supreme Court
On Wednesday, a three-judge panel for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York rejected a request by Trump’s lawyers that the full court review its earlier decision that Trump was not protected from being sued by Carroll by presidential immunity.
Last month, a three-judge panel at the Second Circuit ruled that Trump had effectively waived his presidential immunity defense when his lawyers didn’t raise it during the first defamation lawsuit that she brought against him.
In May, a jury found that Trump had sexually assaulted Carroll in a changing room at Bergdorf Goodman department store in New York in the mid-1990s and later defamed her by suggesting she was lying about the incident. Trump was ordered to pay Carroll $5 million, but he is appealing the decision.
Carroll filed a second defamation suit against Trump after he persisted with his claims that the sexual assault never happened and that Carroll had lied about it.
Last week, the court also denied a motion by Trump’s lawyers to delay the Jan. 15 start date of Carroll’s second defamation lawsuit against Trump.
Why it matters: Trump is attempting to use the presidential immunity defense in the civil lawsuits and the criminal prosecution on election interference charges brought by Smith. Ultimately, those arguments, like the 14th Amendment question, may end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Recommended reading
_________________
Tuesday, Jan. 2
_________________
In posts to his social media website, former President Donald Trump offers up new defenses for his actions during and leading up to the riot at the U.S. Capitol building by his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021. The claims suggest that the House select committee investigating the riot destroyed evidence Trump could have used to defend himself and that prior to being banned by Twitter, he had been preparing to invoke the Insurrection Act. Here is the latest legal news involving the man who hopes to be reelected to the White House in 2024.
January 6 election interference
Trump claims Jan. 6 committee destroyed evidence that would have helped his defense
Key players: Former Rep. Liz Cheney, special counsel Jack Smith, former entertainment lawyer Rogan O’Handley
In a New Year’s Day post on his social media website, Trump falsely suggested that Cheney and the House Jan. 6 select committee had “illegally” deleted and destroyed “most of the evidence, and related items, from the January 6th Committee of Political Thugs and Misfits. THIS ACT OF EXTREME SABOTAGE MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR MY LAWYERS TO PROPERLY PREPARE FOR, AND PRESENT, A PROPER DEFENSE OF THEIR CLIENT, ME,” Salon reported.
The committee interviewed more than 1,000 witnesses before it compiled its 845-page final report, and Trump is seizing on the fact that the entirety of those transcribed interviews does not appear in the final published report, suggesting, without evidence, that what is not included would have helped to exonerate him.
There is no evidence that the committee deleted any evidence that would have been beneficial to Trump, and on Tuesday, Cheney responded to Trump’s claim.
“Seems like someone is starting 2024 hangry. @realDonaldTrump – you and your lawyers have had the J6 cmttee materials (linked below) plus the grand jury info & much more for months. Lying about the evidence in all caps won’t change the facts. A public trial will show it all.”
On New Year’s Eve, Trump also reposted a message by O’Handley, who floated the evidence-free theory that Twitter banned Trump from the platform so as to thwart him from invoking the Insurrection Act that would have allowed him to use the U.S. military to clear the Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021.
“What if they were trying to limit his ability to activate the Insurrection Act?” O’Handley mused.
Politico legal reporter Kyle Cheney (no relation to Liz) quickly pointed out the flaws with this theory: “The president doesn’t need Twitter to be able to issue a public warning. He also has repeatedly insisted he gave all necessary authority to DoD and Sec. Miller days earlier.”
And legal expert Steve Vladek piled on: “This cockamamie new theory depends upon a factually incorrect understanding of what it takes to trigger the Insurrection Act. Congress removed the (original statutory) requirement that a dispersal request *precede* the calling forth of troops in … 1795.”
Why it matters: While it remains to be seen whether Trump’s lawyers will offer similar arguments about alleged missing evidence or a conspiracy by social media companies to prevent the former president from invoking the Insurrection Act, Smith and his team have surely taken notice of the former president’s latest social media activity and could certainly present it in court.