Supreme Court overturns Trump Colorado ballot ban in unanimous ruling

Fox News
4 Mar 202413:30

Summary

TLDRThe script recounts a Fox News panel discussing a unanimous Supreme Court ruling in favor of former President Donald Trump, overturning a Colorado Supreme Court decision that aimed to disqualify him from the state's ballot. The panel examines the implications of this decision, with legal analysts suggesting it nullifies similar efforts by other states. They delve into the Court's reasoning, potential future challenges, and the impact on Trump's prospects amid ongoing legal battles, including an upcoming trial over the January 6th events. The discussion highlights the Court's stance on preserving the electoral process while leaving room for speculation on how this ruling might influence Trump's legal battles.

Takeaways

  • 🗞️ The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump, overturning the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to disqualify him from the Colorado ballot.
  • 📖 The ruling implies that what happened in Colorado is not correct and suggests that states do not have the power to disqualify presidential candidates in this manner, potentially affecting similar actions in other states.
  • 📝 Justices Barrett and others wrote concurrences, indicating agreement with the judgment but differing on the rationale.
  • 🧐 The decision was described as having a unified voice from the court, emphasizing a concern over a patchwork of state decisions affecting national elections.
  • 🛠️ There were no dissents noted, pointing to a consensus on the court against the disqualification framework used by Colorado.
  • 🌐 The Supreme Court's opinion suggests that the power to enforce Section 3 against federal office holders and candidates rests with Congress, not the states.
  • 📚 Justice Barrett and the three progressive justices expressed that the court may have gone too far in addressing additional questions beyond the immediate issue.
  • 📈 This decision is seen as a significant victory for Trump, impacting how states can challenge presidential candidates' eligibility.
  • 🖥️ The court's swift decision, rendered in just 25 days, is unusually fast for the U.S. Supreme Court, indicating the urgency and importance of the case.
  • 🔔 The ruling may influence the approach to other cases related to presidential elections, emphasizing the court's intention not to decide the 2024 election through this ruling.

Q & A

  • What was the U.S. Supreme Court's decision regarding former President Donald Trump's appeal?

    -The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump in his appeal of a Colorado ballot disqualification.

  • What was the implication of the Supreme Court's decision beyond Colorado?

    -The decision implies that, in all likelihood, the ruling will apply to other states as well.

  • What did the Supreme Court say about the judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court?

    -The Supreme Court stated that the judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court, which allowed Trump to be kicked off the ballot, does not stand and has to be overturned.

  • Did any justices write concurrences or dissents regarding the decision?

    -Justice Barrett and possibly other justices wrote concurrences, but there were no dissents noted in the discussion, indicating a general agreement on the outcome.

  • What concern did the Supreme Court address regarding states disqualifying candidates from ballots?

    -The Supreme Court was concerned about creating a patchwork across the state, where different states might disqualify candidates arbitrarily, leading to a fragmented national election process.

  • What did the court suggest should be the authority to disqualify a candidate from the ballot?

    -The court suggested that the authority to disqualify a candidate from the ballot should rest with Congress, not individual states.

  • How did the justices view the states' power in disqualifying candidates from ballots?

    -The justices appeared to unanimously agree that states do not have the power to unilaterally disqualify candidates from ballots; this should be a matter for Congress.

  • What was the concern of Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson?

    -Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, while concurring with the judgment, expressed concerns that the court went too far in resolving additional questions beyond the immediate case.

  • Does this Supreme Court decision affect similar cases in other states?

    -Yes, this decision suggests that states have lost the ability to unilaterally disqualify candidates based on the criteria that were applied in the Colorado case.

  • What was the timeline between the Supreme Court's argument and the decision on this case?

    -The case was argued on February 8th and the decision was rendered on March 4th, making it a relatively quick turnaround of 25 days for the Supreme Court.

Outlines

00:00

📰 Breaking News: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Trump on Ballot Disqualification

This paragraph covers a breaking news alert reporting that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump in his appeal of a Colorado ballot disqualification. The ruling applies to Colorado and is likely to impact other states as well. Shannon Bream provides initial analysis, stating that the court has essentially overturned the Colorado Supreme Court's judgment allowing Trump to be kicked off the ballot. The court appears to be united in this decision, with concurrences from Justices Barrett and others, but no dissents are noted.

05:06

🗳️ Implications of the Supreme Court Ruling on Ballot Disqualification

This paragraph delves into the potential implications of the Supreme Court ruling. Andy McCarthy suggests that while the decision is a sweeping 9-0 ruling on the states' inability to disqualify candidates, there is a 5-4 split on the more important issue of whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment can be enforced without Congress legislating through Section 5. The implication is that Congress cannot use Section 3 to deny Trump the presidency if he wins the 2024 election, which is considered a momentous decision. Justices Barrett and the three progressive justices appear to be unhappy with the court's reach on this matter.

10:07

⌛ Potential Timing of the Immunity Case Decision and July 4th Weekend

This paragraph discusses the potential timing of the Supreme Court's decision on the immunity case involving President Trump. It is noted that the court has historically rendered decisions around the end of June or the first week of July, coinciding with the July 4th holiday weekend. Based on the lightning-fast decision in the ballot disqualification case and the experts' predictions, there is speculation that the court may issue a ruling on the immunity case right before the July 4th weekend, potentially setting the stage for significant events surrounding the holiday.

Mindmap

Keywords

💡U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the United States, with the authority to interpret the Constitution and ultimately decide on the legality of laws and actions. In the video, it rules in favor of former President Donald Trump, overturning a Colorado Supreme Court decision that sought to disqualify him from a ballot. This illustrates the Court's critical role in resolving significant legal disputes that can have widespread political implications.

💡Colorado ballot disqualification

This refers to the Colorado Supreme Court's judgment to disqualify Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot, which was based on certain criteria not specified in the transcript. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn this ruling underscores the national legal standards that supersede state judgments in matters of federal importance, particularly concerning presidential eligibility.

💡Opinion

In legal terminology, an 'opinion' is a formal statement issued by a court or a judge explaining the rationale behind a decision on a case. The video discusses the Supreme Court's opinion favoring Trump, highlighting the Court's reasoning and its implications for the legal framework around ballot qualifications and the scope of state versus federal authority.

💡Concurrences

Concurrences refer to additional opinions written by one or more justices of the Supreme Court who agree with the majority's decision but wish to express different reasons for their agreement. In the video, Justices Barrett and others wrote concurrences, indicating a nuanced agreement with the main decision but from distinct legal perspectives.

💡Patchwork across the state

This phrase suggests a concern about inconsistency in election laws across different states, which could arise if states were allowed to individually decide on ballot qualifications. The Supreme Court's decision aims to prevent such a 'patchwork', emphasizing a uniform approach to federal election qualifications to ensure national coherence.

💡14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law. In the context of the video, there's discussion about whether it was 'self-executing' regarding states' ability to disqualify candidates based on insurrection or rebellion. The Supreme Court's ruling indicates that such actions require Congressional legislation, showing the complexity of constitutional interpretation.

💡Insurrection

Insurrection refers to a violent uprising against an authority or government. The video mentions debate over the 14th Amendment's application to individuals deemed to have participated in insurrection, discussing whether states could disqualify such individuals from ballots. This debate is central to the case, reflecting on broader questions of law, order, and electoral integrity.

💡Congress

Congress is mentioned in the context of its role in legislating the enforcement mechanisms for the 14th Amendment's provisions on disqualifying candidates. The Supreme Court's decision implies that only Congress, not individual states, has the authority to enact laws regarding the disqualification of federal candidates, underscoring the separation of powers in the U.S. government.

💡Self-executing

A legal provision is 'self-executing' if it can be applied directly without needing additional legislation. The video touches on whether the 14th Amendment is self-executing concerning disqualifying candidates for insurrection. The Supreme Court's stance suggests it is not self-executing in this context, highlighting the necessity for Congressional action.

💡Unanimous decision

A unanimous decision occurs when all justices of the Supreme Court agree on the outcome of a case. The video notes the significance of the unanimous decision in Trump's favor, emphasizing the Court's collective stance against state-imposed ballot disqualifications without federal legislative backing. This unanimity sends a strong message about the Court's view on the balance of state and federal powers in electoral matters.

Highlights

The U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of former President Donald Trump, overturning the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to disqualify him from the ballot.

The decision implies that similar disqualifications in other states are likely incorrect, suggesting a unified stance against state-level ballot disqualifications.

Justice Barrett and other justices wrote concurrences, indicating agreement on the outcome but varied paths to the decision.

The Court's majority opinion suggests that the power to disqualify candidates based on insurrection is reserved for Congress, not individual states.

The decision aims to prevent a fragmented electoral process across states, ensuring a uniform approach to candidate qualifications.

Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson concur on the judgment but express concern that the Court's reach was too broad.

The ruling is seen as a unanimous (9-0) decision on the result, with a 5-4 split on the enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment without Congressional action.

This ruling significantly impacts states that sought to disqualify Trump from ballots, nullifying their efforts and reinforcing the role of Congress.

The decision is framed as a critical moment in U.S. history, affirming the principle that voters should choose their candidates without state interference.

The Supreme Court's fast decision-making on this case highlights its significance and urgency.

Panelists agree that this ruling likely nullifies similar cases in other states, emphasizing the unanimous decision against state-enforced disqualifications.

The Court's approach minimizes its involvement in electoral decisions, aiming to avoid setting precedents that could influence future elections.

The ruling is a major victory for Trump, forcing political opponents to confront him in the election without relying on legal disqualifications.

The Supreme Court indicates it does not want to decide the 2024 election through judicial action, emphasizing a separation from electoral processes.

This case sets a precedent that Congress, not states or the Court, has the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment regarding candidate disqualification.

Transcripts

00:00

CAPITOL.

00:00

WE'LL SEND IT BACK TO YOU.

00:01

I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE THE

00:02

OPINION.

00:03

>> Bill: THANK YOU.

00:03

SHALL WE?

00:04

ROLL IT, FOLKS.

00:05

THIS NOW IS A FOX NEWS ALERT AND

00:08

READING THIS.

00:09

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULES IN

00:11

FAVOR OF FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD

00:13

TRUMP IN HIS APPEAL OF A

00:16

COLORADO BALLOT

00:17

DISQUALIFICATION.

00:17

THAT APPLIES TO COLORADO AND IN

00:20

ALL LIKELIHOOD, IT WILL APPLY TO

00:22

OTHER STATES AS WELL.

00:23

LIVE TO SHANNON FOR HER INITIAL

00:25

ANALYSIS AND REACTION NOW.

00:29

DID YOU HAVE THE INSIDE WORD,

00:30

SHANNON?

00:31

HELLO.

00:31

>> OK, WHAT WE HAVE IN THE COURT

00:33

THIS MORNING IS THIS DECISION IN

00:34

FAVOR OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

00:36

THEY ESSENTIALLY SAY THE

00:37

JUDGMENT OF THE COLORADO SUPREME

00:38

COURT THAT HE CAN BE KICKED OFF

00:39

THE BALLOT IN THIS MANNER DOES

00:41

NOT STAND.

00:44

HAS TO BE OVERTURNED.

00:45

IT'S AN OPINION, THE LATIN FOR

00:47

THAT IS THE COURT SPEAKS.

00:48

SUPPOSED TO BE SORT OF A UNIFIED

00:51

VOICE.

00:51

BUT WE DO, AS I'M LOOKING

00:53

THROUGH, ADDITIONAL FOLKS WHO

00:54

WROTE.

00:55

JUSTIN -- JUSTICE BARRETT AND I

01:00

BELIEVE OTHER JUSTICES WRITE

01:01

CONCURRENCES AS WELL.

01:02

THEY MAY HAVE GOTTEN TO THIS IN

01:03

A DIFFERENT WAY.

01:04

I DON'T SEE ANY DISSENTS HERE.

01:06

IT SOUNDS LIKE THE COURT AS A

01:08

WHOLE IS AGREED WHATEVER

01:09

HAPPENED WITH COLORADO, IT WAS

01:10

NOT THE PROPER FRAMEWORK TO USE

01:13

HERE.

01:13

THERE IS DISCUSSION AT THE END

01:14

OF THE MAIN DECISION THAT SAYS,

01:16

YOU KNOW, THERE WOULD BE

01:18

ESSENTIALLY A PATCHWORK ACROSS

01:19

THE STATE.

01:19

SO THIS WAS ONE OF THE WORRIES

01:20

THAT THE JUSTICES HAD AND THE

01:23

QUESTIONS THAT CAME TOGETHER IN

01:25

ARGUMENT WERE, WHAT HAPPENS IF

01:26

WE TELL ONE STATE THEY CAN DO

01:27

THIS?

01:28

THE CHIEF JUSTICE SAID WHAT IF

01:29

ONE STATE DECIDES, OK BE I'M

01:31

KICKING OFF A REPUBLICAN AND

01:32

ANOTHER STATE SAYS OK, I'M

01:33

KICKING OFF A DEMOCRAT?

01:34

AND THEN WE GET DOWN TO JUST A

01:36

HANDFUL OF STATES THAT HAVE ALL

01:38

OF THE CANDIDATES' NAMES ON THE

01:40

BALLOT, WHAT WOULD THAT DO TO

01:41

THIS COUNTRY?

01:42

IT SOUNDS LIKE THE MAJORITY OF

01:43

THE COURT HAS COME TOGETHER IN

01:45

THIS VOICE TO SAY WHAT HAPPENED

01:47

IN COLORADO IS NOT CORRECT.

01:48

IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE SAYING

01:50

STATES DON'T HAVE THIS POWER.

01:51

BUT ESSENTIALLY, THIS IS

01:52

SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE LEFT TO

01:54

CONGRESS.

01:54

AND SO THEY AGREED TO THAT

01:56

POINT, BUT HOW THEY GOT TO THESE

01:58

DIFFERENT POSITIONS AND HOW THEY

01:59

GOT TO THE AGREEMENT, THEY FOUND

02:01

SOME DIFFERENT MAPS THERE.

02:02

THEY GOT TO THE SAME END RESULT,

02:03

GUYS.

02:05

>> Dana: I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS

02:07

FOR YOU.

02:08

ONE IS ABOUT SOTOMAYOR, ONE THAT

02:10

MIGHT DISAGREE.

02:12

ALSO, DOES THIS MEAN FOR ANY

02:13

OTHER STATE THAT'S THINKING

02:14

ABOUT THIS LIKE ILLINOIS, FOR

02:16

EXAMPLE, THAT IF THEY'RE

02:17

THINKING OF TRYING TO KEEP TRUMP

02:18

OFF THE BALLOT, THAT THEY WOULD

02:20

BE BARRED FROM DOING SO BASED ON

02:21

THIS DECISION?

02:23

>> YEAH, WHAT I'VE SEEN SO FAR

02:25

OF THIS AND I'M TRYING TO READ

02:26

THROUGH HERE, IT SOUNDS LIKE

02:27

WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THE

02:28

STATES DON'T HAVE THIS POWER.

02:30

SO THAT WOULD MEAN ANY STATE

02:32

ESSENTIALLY SAYING THIS IS

02:32

SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN

02:33

LEFT TO CONGRESS.

02:34

IF YOU'RE GOING TO, YOU KNOW,

02:36

THERE'S QUESTIONS NOT TO GET TOO

02:37

WONKY BUT ABOUT THE 14TH

02:39

AMENDMENT IF IT WAS

02:41

SELF-EXECUTING, IF STATES COULD

02:41

PICK IT UP AND SAY WE FIND

02:43

SOMEONE WE THINK WAS GUILTY OF

02:45

INSURRECTION AND SO WE'RE SAYING

02:47

THEY CAN'T BE ON OUR BALLOT.

02:49

THERE WAS QUESTION, THOUGH,

02:50

WHETHER CONGRESS HAS TO GIVE

02:51

SOME FRAMEWORK FOR ACTUALLY

02:52

KICKING SOMEONE OFF THE BALLOT

02:54

OR MAKING A DECISION ABOUT

02:56

KICKING SOMEONE OFF THE BALLOT.

02:57

IT SOUNDS LIKE HERE, THEY SAY

02:58

THE DISRUPTION TO ALLOW STATES

03:02

WOULD BE ACUTE AND COULD NULLIFY

03:03

THE VOTE OF MILLIONS AND CHANGE

03:05

THE ELECTION RESULT AT DIFFERENT

03:06

TIMES.

03:06

THEY SAY ENFORCING SECTION THREE

03:08

AGAINST FEDERAL OFFICE HOLDERS

03:10

AND CANDIDATES RESTS WITH

03:11

CONGRESS AND NOT THE STATES.

03:13

SO THE JUDGMENT OF THE COLORADO

03:15

SUPREME COURT CANNOT STAND.

03:16

THAT SOUNDS LIKE A CLEAR MESSAGE

03:18

WITHOUT HAVING READ THE ENTIRE

03:20

OPINION, BUT CLEAR MESSAGE THAT

03:21

STATES DO NOT HAVE THE POWER.

03:24

>> Dana: WE SHOULD LET YOU KEEP

03:25

READING.

03:26

>> Bill: WE'LL ALLOW YOU A

03:27

MOMENT TO GET A FEW PARAGRAPHS

03:29

INTO YOUR BIG BRAIN, SHANNON.

03:31

LET'S MOVE TO OUR TEAM NOW.

03:33

JONATHAN, YOU'RE FIRST UP TO

03:34

REACT.

03:34

HOW DO YOU HEAR IT?

03:36

>> I'VE JUST BEEN READING THE

03:37

OPINION.

03:38

IT'S OBVIOUSLY A SWEEPING.

03:41

THERE AREN'T ANY REAL DISSENTS

03:43

SO IT DOES LOOK LIKE IT IS

03:44

UNANIMOUS, AT LEAST ON THE

03:46

RESULT, WHAT THEY HAVE A

03:48

DISAGREEMENT ON IS WHETHER THE

03:49

COURT HAD TO GO AS FAR AS IT

03:50

DID.

03:53

NOW, THE MOST PRACTICAL RESULT

03:55

OF THIS IS THAT THE VOTERS WILL

03:56

BE ABLE TO VOTE FOR THE

03:58

CANDIDATE THAT THEY PREFER.

04:00

THIS WAS A CRITICAL MOMENT FOR

04:03

THIS COURT IN HISTORY.

04:05

AFTER ALL OF THE YEARS WE HAVE

04:07

SPENT IN THIS REPUBLIC, WE CAME

04:10

TO A POINT WHERE THESE STATES

04:12

CLAIMED THAT THEY COULD

04:15

UNILATERALLY BAR THE LEADING

04:16

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FROM

04:16

BALLOTS TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM

04:18

VOTING FOR DONALD TRUMP.

04:21

THE COURT HERE SPOKE WITH A

04:24

STRONG AND IT APPEARS UNANIMOUS

04:25

VOICE, AT LEAST ON THE RESULT,

04:27

THAT THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

04:29

THAT VOTERS WILL VOTE.

04:32

THEY'LL MAKE THEIR OWN VERDICT

04:33

REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS IN

04:34

CASES INVOLVING PRESIDENT TRUMP.

04:37

THEY WILL CAST THE MOST

04:37

IMPORTANT VERDICT OF ALL.

04:39

THEY WILL VOTE FOR THE NEXT

04:39

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

04:42

>> Bill: STAND BY THERE, SIR.

04:44

LET'S GET ANOTHER OPINION IN

04:46

HERE.

04:46

ANDY MCCARTHY, WHAT'S YOUR READ?

04:49

>> I THINK JONATHAN IS RIGHT

04:52

ABOUT THE BOTTOM LINE SWEEPING

04:54

9-0 DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE

04:55

STATES.

04:57

BUT I THINK THAT THIS CASE IS

04:59

ACTUALLY A 5-4 CASE ON WHAT MAY

05:05

BE THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISION.

05:07

IF I'M READING THIS RIGHT, WHAT

05:09

THEY'RE SAYING IS SECTION 3

05:11

CANNOT BE ENFORCED UNLESS

05:13

CONGRESS LEGISLATES THROUGH

05:14

SECTION 5 OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT

05:15

WHICH IT HAS DONE IN ENACTING A

05:18

CRIMINAL STATUTE WHICH WOULD

05:20

ALLOW SOMEONE TO BE CONVICTED OF

05:24

05:25

INSURRECTION.

05:25

WHAT I GLEAN FROM THIS IS

05:27

THEY'RE SAYING IN THE NEXT

05:29

JANUARY 6TH, NEXT TIME THAT

05:31

CONGRESS IS CALLED ON TO RATIFY

05:36

AN ELECTION RESULT THAT CONGRESS

05:38

CANNOT USE SECTION 3 OF THE 14TH

05:42

AMENDMENT TO TRY TO DENY DONALD

05:45

TRUMP THE PRESIDENCY IF HE WINS

05:47

THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WHICH

05:49

IS PRETTY MOMENTOUS AND IT LOOKS

05:51

TO ME LIKE JUSTICE BARRETT AND

05:53

THE THREE PROGRESSIVES ON THE

05:54

COURT ARE UNHAPPY THAT THE COURT

05:57

REACHED AND DECIDED THAT.

05:58

>> Dana: SHANNON, NOW THAT

05:59

YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE MAYBE TO

06:01

TAKE ANOTHER LOOK HERE.

06:03

ANYTHING ABOUT THE SOTOMAYOR

06:05

KEAGAN JACKSON CONTINGENT?

06:08

>> YES.

06:08

YEAH.

06:08

I THINK ANDY IS EXACTLY RIGHT

06:10

THERE.

06:10

AND WHAT PROFESSOR TURLEY SAID

06:12

AS WELL.

06:13

THERE'S NOT A DISSENT.

06:14

THEY CONCUR ON THE JUDGMENT BUT

06:16

THEY SAY THEY DON'T THINK THE

06:17

COURT SHOULD HAVE GONE TO ALL

06:18

THESE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT

06:19

THEY DID.

06:20

THEY SAID IT WAS ENOUGH AND

06:21

JUSTICE BARRETT SAID IN HER

06:23

CONCURRENCE, TOO, TO GET TO

06:24

BOTTOM LINE THAT STATES CANNOT

06:25

DO THIS.

06:25

IT'S NOT IN THEIR PURVIEW TO DO

06:27

IT.

06:27

BUT THE DISSENT, AGAIN, NOT

06:30

DISSENTERS, CONCURRENCES THAT

06:32

COME FROM JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR,

06:34

KEAGAN AND JACKSON TAKES A

06:35

DIFFERENT PATH.

06:36

THEY THINK THE COURT GOES TOO

06:37

FAR.

06:37

BY RESOLVING THESE EXTRA

06:39

QUESTIONS, THE MAJORITY ATTEMPTS

06:41

TO INSULATE ALL ALLEGED

06:43

INSURRECTIONISTS FROM FUTURE

06:45

CHALLENGES TO THEIR HOLDING

06:47

FEDERAL OFFICE.

06:47

THEY FEEL LIKE THE COURT WENT

06:48

TOO FAR.

06:48

YOU TRY TO GO AS NARROWLY AS

06:50

POSSIBLE.

06:50

AGAIN, THEY AGREE WITH THE

06:52

OVERALL DECISION.

06:52

BUT THINK THAT THE COURT IS

06:53

TRYING TO GIVE TOO MUCH COVER TO

06:56

FUTURE CANDIDATES WHO MAY FACE

06:58

THIS SCENARIO AND THEY JUST

06:59

DON'T THINK THE COURT SHOULD

07:01

HAVE GONE THOSE EXTRA STEPS.

07:02

>> Bill: I'M GOING TO SHOW OUR

07:03

VIEWERS THIS MAP HERE, GUYS, IF

07:04

WE COULD.

07:06

I HOPE I'VE GOT THE NUMBERS

07:08

RIGHT, CORRECT ME IF I'M MISSING

07:10

A FEW.

07:10

IT APPEARS THAT AT LEAST NINE

07:12

STATES, ALL RIGHT, THIS APPLIES

07:14

TO COLORADO.

07:14

BUT ILLINOIS HAS A SIMILAR

07:15

CHARGE, SO DOES THE STATE OF

07:17

MAINE.

07:17

MAINE IS IN SUPER TUESDAY

07:18

TOMORROW.

07:20

THEN EVERYTHING YOU SEE IN

07:21

YELLOW HAS A CASE THAT'S

07:25

PENDING.

07:25

DOES THIS NULLIFY ALL OF THOSE?

07:28

OR SOME OF THOSE?

07:31

OR NONE OF THOSE?

07:35

>> IF YOU'RE ASKING ME, I THINK

07:39

WE'D PROBABLY AGREE THESE STATES

07:41

HAVE LOST THE ABILITY TO DO

07:42

THAT.

07:43

I'LL LET MY FELLOW PANELISTS

07:45

ANSWER.

07:45

>> Bill: ARE ALL THESE CASES

07:46

DONE?

07:47

>> I THINK THEY'RE ALL DEAD AS

07:52

DILLINGER.

07:52

WHEN YOU READ THIS OPINION,

07:53

THERE'S NO DISSENT THAT THE

07:56

STATES CANNOT ENFORCE THE 14TH

07:58

AMENDMENT PROVISION.

08:01

THE ONLY DISAGREEMENT, AS WE'VE

08:03

BEEN DISCUSSING, IS WHETHER THE

08:06

COURT SHOULD HAVE GONE EVEN

08:07

FURTHER TO SORT OF CLOSE OFF

08:08

FUTURE ARGUMENTS OR CHALLENGES

08:12

WITHOUT AN ACTION FROM CONGRESS.

08:14

THE MAJORITY IS SAYING THAT,

08:15

LOOK, YOU NEED CONGRESS TO ACT

08:18

HERE BEFORE YOU CAN ENFORCE THIS

08:19

PROVISION.

08:22

SOME OF THE JUSTICES FELT THEY

08:24

DIDN'T REALLY TO DEAL WITH THAT

08:26

QUESTION.

08:26

THEY DIDN'T SAY, BY THE WAY,

08:27

THAT THEY DISAGREE WITH THE

08:31

CONCLUSION NECESSARILY AS MUCH

08:32

AS THAT IS A BIT OF A REACH

08:33

BEYOND WHERE THEY NEED TO GO.

08:36

AND THEY ARE SAYING LOOK, WE

08:37

HAVE A LONG TRADITION OF

08:39

MINIMIZING OUR FOOTPRINT OF

08:40

TRYING TO STAY CONFINED TO THE

08:42

QUESTION AT HAND.

08:43

THAT'S NOT MUCH OF A

08:45

DISAGREEMENT.

08:46

YOU KNOW, KEEP IN MIND THAT FOR

08:48

MONTHS NOW, THIS HAS BEEN

08:50

LITERALLY CALLED AN UNASSAILABLE

08:54

THEORY, VARIOUS PROFESSORS AND

08:56

COLUMNISTS HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT

08:57

THE ONLY THING THAT WILL STOP

09:02

THE DISQUALIFICATION OF DONALD

09:05

TRUMP ARE THE CONSERVATIVE

09:06

JUSTICES ACTING AS POLITICAL

09:08

ROBOTS.

09:09

WELL, THIS IS A UNANIMOUS COURT

09:11

REJECTING THAT THEORY.

09:14

>> Dana: WHAT'S INTERESTING,

09:15

ANDY, IS THIS IS OBVIOUSLY NO

09:17

DOUBT A BIG WIN FOR PRESIDENT

09:20

TRUMP.

09:20

BIG WIN AT THE HIGHEST COURT IN

09:21

THE LAND.

09:24

IT ALSO MAKES THE BIDEN TEAM

09:27

HAVE TO LIVE IN REALITY THAT

09:30

THESE COURT CASES ARE NOT GOING

09:32

TO BE THE THING THAT GETS TRUMP

09:33

OFF THE BALLOTS OR OUT OF THE

09:35

RACE.

09:36

THAT THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO

09:39

RUN AGAINST HIM.

09:40

AND WHAT I'M WONDERING IS AND I

09:41

KNOW YOU CAN'T TELL THE FUTURE,

09:43

CRYSTAL BALL.

09:43

THERE ARE OTHER CASES THAT

09:44

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ASKED THE

09:45

SUPREME COURT TO LOOK AT.

09:49

WITH THIS RULING AND THIS KIND

09:51

OF RESULT AND UNANIMITY AT LEAST

09:52

ON THE FACT THAT THE STATES

09:54

CAN'T DO THIS UNILATERALLY

09:55

UNLESS CONGRESS ACTS IN THOSE

09:57

OTHER PROVISIONS WHICH THEY'RE

09:57

NOT GOING TO DO, DOES THAT MEAN

09:59

THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP MIGHT HAVE

10:01

A BETTER POSITION GOING INTO THE

10:02

COURT ON THOSE OTHER CASES AS

10:05

WELL?

10:06

>> I DON'T THINK SO, DANA.

10:07

I THINK, YOU KNOW, FIRST OF ALL,

10:09

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IN TERMS OF

10:11

MINIMIZING ITS FOOTPRINT AS

10:14

JONATHAN REFERRED TO WHAT THIS

10:15

COURT WANTS TO MAKE CLEAR IS IT

10:20

IS NOT DECIDING THE 2024

10:22

ELECTION.

10:22

THIS DECISION HAS BEEN CRAFTED

10:25

IN A WAY THAT DEPENDING ON WHAT

10:28

HAPPENS IN THE ELECTION THE

10:30

COURT IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING

10:32

DON'T COME BACK TO US AFTER THE

10:33

ELECTION AND HAVE DEMOCRATS IN

10:35

CONGRESS TRYING TO DISQUALIFY

10:37

TRUMP UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE

10:38

14TH AMENDMENT.

10:39

THAT'S DONE.

10:39

WE'RE NOT DOING THAT.

10:44

HOWEVER, THEY'RE GEARING UP FOR

10:46

A SEPTEMBER TRIAL OF TRUMP IN

10:49

THE JANUARY 6TH CASE.

10:52

YOU CAN SEE THAT ALREADY FROM

10:54

THE REPORTING LAST WEEK WHERE

10:56

THE JACK SMITH PROSECUTION TEAM

10:59

BASICALLY TRASHED WHAT

11:00

PREVIOUSLY HAS BEEN KNOWN AS THE

11:02

UNWRITTEN 60-DAY RULE WHERE THE

11:04

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SUPPOSEDLY

11:05

WON'T TAKE ACTION.

11:07

THAT MIGHT INFLUENCE AN

11:10

ELECTION.

11:10

THEY SAID LAST WEEK THAT'S WANT

11:12

OPERATIVE.

11:13

"THE NEW YORK TIMES" IN ITS

11:13

REPORTING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR

11:16

CASE THAT CAME DOWN TODAY NOTED

11:18

THAT IF THE COURT KEPT THE SAME

11:20

PACE WITH RESPECT TO THE

11:22

IMMUNITY CASE AS THEY'VE KEPT