The Latest Breaking News from Anderson

The Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. Anderson is in part rooted in fears of divergent state decisions on election issues. But a patchwork of divergent state rulings isn't necessarily bad.

Even under the Trump v. Anderson per curiam opinion, Section 3 can be raised as a defense without the need for federal implementing legislation. But the Supreme Court may still avoid ruling on the merits.

There are reasons to suspect the justices were wrangling over language up until the last minute.

Today's unanimous per curiam Supreme Court decision in Trump v. Anderson overturns the Colorado Supreme Court ruling disqualifying Donald Trump from the presidency under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. It does so on the ground that Section 3 is not "self-executing." Thus, only Congress, through special legislation, has the…

From the outset of the litigation, Blackman & Tillman's argument was that Griffin's Case bars the relief sought by the Colorado voters.

The issues, arguments, and evidence raised by Mikhail has already been addressed by our scholarship. This evidence was not "ignored or overlooked."

If the Court kicks the insurrection issue to the election, the Court may also kick the immunity case to the election.

"Some more scholars" talk about Section 3

The states do not need Section 3 to impose qualifications on state-created positions. But only the national government should decide questions about the President.

Why did Jonathan Mitchell not vigorously defend Griffin's Case and Chief Justice Chase? And Mitchell missed Justice Barrett's question about direct/collateral challenges due to his refusal to accept the sword-shield dichotomy.

Justice Jackson explained that an ambiguous text should be interpreted in favor of expanding democracy. But Mitchell's concern about Foreign Emoluments Clause "boomerang" could have cut off a path of complete victory.