Colorado Supreme Court

‘Look for a reversal in a fairly short period of time’ − former federal judge expects Supreme Court will keep Trump on Colorado ballot

Retrieved on:

Thursday, February 8, 2024

He is the president of Dickinson College and a retired federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate in 2002.

Key Points:

He is the president of Dickinson College and a retired federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate in 2002.
I think it’s clear they’re going to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court.
I would look for a reversal in a fairly short period of time.
The surprise may be that some of the more liberal justices could join the majority.
I think you could potentially see some concurring opinions, although I think Chief Justice John Roberts will try to wrap it into one opinion.
Murray clerked for Justice Neil Gorsuch when he was on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and also clerked for Justice Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court.
Of course, it got challenged up to the Supreme Court, and in the Constitution there’s no amendment that imposes term limits.
There’s an element of trying to torture a very poorly written section down into something that fits the situation in 2024.

John E. Jones III does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Supreme Court skeptical that Colorado − or any state − should decide for whole nation whether Trump is eligible for presidency

Retrieved on:

Thursday, February 8, 2024

Thought, Supreme, Federalism, Section 3, Constitution, Name, Congress, Federation, Supreme court, Colorado Supreme Court, Trump

Colorado’s highest court relied on the provision in a December 2023 ruling that the state could bar former President Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot because they determined he committed insurrection.

Key Points:

Colorado’s highest court relied on the provision in a December 2023 ruling that the state could bar former President Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot because they determined he committed insurrection.
“Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination, not only for their own citizens, but for the rest of the nation?” asked liberal Justice Elena Kagan on Feb. 8.
The Conversation’s senior politics and democracy editor, Naomi Schalit, spoke with Notre Dame election law scholar Derek Muller after the oral arguments.

The Supreme Court was very skeptical that, as an institution, it should be the one responsible for deciding this deeply contested question, and it seemed skeptical that the state of Colorado could do this on its own without some congressional guidance or authorization.
The justices did not appear to be divided and partisan in their discussion of the case.
On the whole, they seemed inclined to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court.
And Colorado was leaning very heavily into this authority they have over which candidates to list on the ballot and how that can vary from state to state.

Federalism is a way of thinking about the proper allocation of authority between the federal government and state governments.
But in other places the federal government has the final say, or the federal government is the one with the authority to make these determinations.
And when it came to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, when you have these messy, contested disputes, should this happen on a state-by-state basis?
The court seemed inclined to think that this is something better left to Congress, rather than states unilaterally interpreting Section 3 on their own.
So a decision in the direction the court appears to be going in has the virtue of allowing the political process to play out.

I filed an amicus curiae brief in support of neither party in this case.

More than 78 ‘friends’ of the Supreme Court offer advice on the 14th Amendment and Trump’s eligibility

Retrieved on:

Tuesday, February 6, 2024

The justices will hear oral arguments in that case, Trump v. Anderson, on Feb. 8.

Key Points:

The justices will hear oral arguments in that case, Trump v. Anderson, on Feb. 8.
2024.
When the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump could not appear on that state’s ballot, Trump appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
While the Supreme Court will ultimately determine Trump’s fate, the numerous parties who have chimed in aim to add context and additional arguments for the justices to consider.

78 amicus briefs

They describe this as an effort to “prevent the lawful inauguration of duly elected Abraham Lincoln.” Others file amicus briefs to advance or further an argument.
All share a common thread: Amicus briefs are filed to help the court shape the ruling in the case.
In Trump v. Anderson, the amicus filers who support Trump filed 34 briefs.
The total of 78 amicus briefs filed is lower than other recent and controversial cases before the Supreme Court.
While normally there is a period of months to file amicus briefs in cases, the court’s expedited timeline directed amicus filers that they had less than four weeks to file their briefs.

Constitutional or unconstitutional?

Trump incited, and therefore engaged in, an armed insurrection against the Constitution’s express and foundational mandates that require the peaceful transfer of executive power to a newly elected President.” Constitutional law scholars such as Berkeley’s Erwin Chemerinsky and Yale’s Bruce Ackerman argue in their filing that Trump’s rhetoric is not protected by the First Amendment.
Thus, they write, the First Amendment should not affect how the court interprets and applies Section 3.
And the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People argues that the court should give consideration to the 14th Amendment’s commitment to equal protection and multiracial democracy because the drafters of the amendment had a “practical concern about how insurrectionists would respect the rights of those whom they did not believe were entitled to rights.”

Unexpected friends

Although legal scholars and politicians frequently file amicus briefs in cases, this case also generated significant interest from nontraditional amici.
An unspecified number of Capitol Police officers who fought against the rioters on Jan. 6, 2021, to protect senators and representatives argue that the First Amendment should not apply because Trump’s speech was “integral to unlawful activity”.
Voters in New Hampshire argue that all Americans have a constitutional right to “a ballot free of such an insurrectionist” as Trump.

‘Great peril’ for the nation

Trump’s supporters argue that Section 3 does not apply to the office of the president.
Even if it did, they assert, Trump’s speech should be protected by the First Amendment.
Anderson’s supporters who seek Trump’s disqualification argue that Section 3 does apply to the president.
And both sides argue that the Supreme Court must decide the issue now because any delay will “place the Nation in great peril”.

Wayne Unger does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Should Donald Trump be disqualified from state ballots in presidential election? Here’s how the US Supreme Court might rule

Retrieved on:

Monday, February 5, 2024

Section 3, Roe v. Wade, Life, Congress, Supreme court, Legislation, Republican, Exercise, Liberal, Justice, Colorado Supreme Court, Lawyer, United, Democracy, Constitution

The US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this week in former President

Key Points:

The US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this week in former President
Donald Trump’s appeal against the decision to exclude him from the ballot in the Colorado Republican primary for this year’s presidential election.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in December that Trump was disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution because he engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021.

How does the Supreme Court operate?

The questioning can provide clues as to how the justices might be leaning.
The justices then meet in private to discuss the case and form a preliminary opinion.
The draft opinion will be circulated to the other justices and is subject to their suggestions and possible alterations.

What are the constitutional issues?

The justices face a seemingly intractable choice between two fundamental values: defending the rule of law and protecting democracy. For most of its life, the insurrection clause has been regarded by constitutional scholars as of historical interest only and consequently ignored. Trump’s appeal raised three major constitutional questions the Supreme Court will have to decide:
whether Section 3 applies to Trump as a sitting president
what it takes to determine if someone is guilty of insurrection
and whether the states have the power to enforce Section 3 without prior approval from Congress.

He also claims the president is not an “officer of the United States”, as the clause reads.
In his petition, Trump offers several unconvincing reasons why this is so and it will probably be a difficult argument for his lawyers to sustain.
As the Colorado Supreme Court said pointedly in its judgement,
The Constitution refers to the presidency as an “office” 25 times.
In effect, then, they are asking the Supreme Court to validate the charge that Trump engaged in an insurrection.

How will the court likely respond?

The Supreme Court has a solid six-to-three conservative majority, with three of the conservative justices nominated by Trump.
The last time the Supreme Court entangled itself in a presidential election – the Bush v. Gore decision in 2001 – it was a judicial dog’s breakfast.
The ruling was widely seen as a political decision reflecting the partisan preferences of the five conservative justices in the majority.
The court should be mindful of the public and legal backlash to that decision and its current low level of public approval.
And the liberal-conservative divide on the court is probably not going to be a reliable predictor of the outcome.

John Hart does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

US Supreme Court decision on Trump-Colorado ballot case 'monumental' for democracy itself, not just 2024 presidential election

Retrieved on:

Saturday, January 6, 2024

State, Trump, Stanford University, Decision-making, Republican Party, Civil War, Anglo-French Wars, Supreme court, Court, The Washington Post, Constitution, Supreme, Colorado Supreme Court, GOP, Republican, Time, History

Momentous questions for the U.S. Supreme Court and momentous consequences for the country are likely now that the court has announced it will decide whether former president and current presidential candidate Donald Trump is eligible to appear on the Colorado ballot.

Key Points:

Momentous questions for the U.S. Supreme Court and momentous consequences for the country are likely now that the court has announced it will decide whether former president and current presidential candidate Donald Trump is eligible to appear on the Colorado ballot.
The court’s decision to consider the issue comes in the wake of Colorado’s highest court ruling that Trump had engaged in insurrection and therefore was barred from appearing on the state’s GOP primary ballot by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Maine’s secretary of state also barred Trump from the state’s primary ballot, and more than a dozen other states are also considering similar moves.

It’s the first time it has kept a presidential candidate off the ballot, much less a former one and the apparent frontrunner for the Republican Party nomination.
This was an extraordinary major decision from the Colorado Supreme Court.
I think the decision to grant only Trump’s case is a decision to make this as streamlined a process as possible.
Will whatever decision the court makes put to rest the ballot access questions in all the other states?
Those are months when the court is in recess, and they would have to come back from their summer vacation early.
They’ve scheduled oral argument on Feb. 8, 2024 so they want to move on as quickly as possible to put this to rest.

The two general points are that I think states have the power to judge the qualifications of presidential candidates and keep them off the ballot.
And states have done that over the years to say if you were born in Nicaragua, or you’re 27 years old, we’re going to keep you off the ballot.
You can look throughout history, going back to the 1890s, where ineligible candidates’ names have been printed and put on the ballot.
And we know that there’s Super Tuesday the first Tuesday of March when a significant number of states hold presidential primaries.

I filed an amicus brief on my own behalf in support of neither party in the Colorado Supreme Court.

Infinicept Appoints Annita Menogan to its Board of Directors

Retrieved on:

Tuesday, March 28, 2023

DENVER, March 28, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Infinicept , a leading provider of embedded payments, today announced that it has appointed Annita Menogan to its board of directors.

Key Points:

DENVER, March 28, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Infinicept , a leading provider of embedded payments, today announced that it has appointed Annita Menogan to its board of directors.
Menogan is currently a board member of RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. and Children’s Hospital Colorado.
She also serves as a board member of AYA Foundation, and the Colorado chapter of the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD), where she is an NACD Leadership Fellow.
“Infinicept brings unique value to an evolving industry, and I’m pleased to be working with this forward-thinking team,” said Menogan.

Miller Barondess, LLP Expands Appellate Practice

Retrieved on:

Monday, November 28, 2022

Miller Barondess adds top appellate partner, Nadia A. Sarkis, continuing the expansion of the firms appellate practice.

Key Points:

Miller Barondess adds top appellate partner, Nadia A. Sarkis, continuing the expansion of the firms appellate practice.
Were excited about what that means for our firm, said Skip Miller, a founding partner of Miller Barondess.
Partner Mira Hashmall, a Certified Specialist in Appellate Law, heads up the firms appellate practice.
Miller Barondess is a 40-lawyer firm in Los Angeles specializing in high-stakes litigation, trial, and appellate work in California and around the country.

IAALS Announces Brittany Kauffman as Next CEO, Paves Way for New Growth and National Impacts

Retrieved on:

Monday, August 22, 2022

Kauffman has been serving as interim CEO since May 2022, and previously served as a senior director overseeing IAALS' programmatic strategy, projects, and research.

Key Points:

Kauffman has been serving as interim CEO since May 2022, and previously served as a senior director overseeing IAALS' programmatic strategy, projects, and research.
"After dozens of internal and external conversations and deep dives into IAALS work and opportunities, the committee unanimously chose Brittany to lead IAALS forward.
They then worked to create a strategic direction to best position IAALS for the future, including choosing Kauffman as its next leader.
And I am excited about working with Brittany Kauffman, my former colleague at Arnold & Porter, for whom I have enormous respect."

RE/MAX HOLDINGS, INC. APPOINTS ANNITA MENOGAN TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Retrieved on:

Monday, June 6, 2022

DENVER, June 6, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:RMAX), parent company of RE/MAX, one of the world's leading franchisors of real estate brokerage services, and Motto Mortgage, the first and only national mortgage brokerage franchise brand in the U.S., today announced that its stockholders elected Annita M. Menogan to its Board of Directors at the Company's annual meeting of stockholders on June 1, 2022. Stockholders also voted to re-elect Dave Liniger, Steve Joyce, and Teresa Van De Bogart to the Board.

Key Points:

"Her deep expertise in legal and governance matters should be tremendously valuable to the Board, the company, and its stockholders."
Currently, Menogan is a board member of Children's Hospital Colorado, a $1.5B top-10 nationally ranked children's hospital.
Menogan is also a board member of the Colorado chapter of the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) and is an NACD Leadership Fellow.
She is chair of the Program Committee and serves on the diversity task force, working to facilitate corporate board opportunities for diverse board candidates.