The Supreme Court ruled on the applicability of the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause to former President Trump's alleged role in the January 6th insurrection, dismissing his disqualification from the ballot but leaving open the possibility of future legal action.
A federal judge's decision to dismiss a case against former President Trump for his alleged role in the January 6th insurrection has sparked debate about the limits of presidential immunity and the application of the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause.
While Special Counsel Jack Smith's report concluded that there was sufficient evidence to charge Trump with four felonies related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, a federal judge ultimately dismissed the case due to Justice Department policy against prosecuting sitting presidents. However, Smith's report may not be the final word on the matter. If prosecutors or congressional lawmakers can convince courts that the statute of limitations for federal cases is not paused during a president's term, it could pave the way for future charges against Trump.The dismissal stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Republicans in Colorado seeking to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot under Section III of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies individuals who have engaged in insurrection from holding public office. The voters argued that Trump's actions on January 6th, including his speech at the Ellipse, pressure on then-Vice President Mike Pence, and failure to quell the mob, constituted insurrection. While the judge acknowledged that Trump engaged in insurrection, she ruled that the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause did not explicitly apply to presidents, who had not taken an oath as members of Congress or other officers of the United States.Trump challenged the ruling up to the Colorado Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled against him, finding that he was an officer of the United States and engaged in insurrection. However, the US Supreme Court ultimately reversed the decision, stating that the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause was something Congress alone had the power to enforce or modify. The court's ruling hinged on the argument that Trump's words at the Ellipse, while potentially inflammatory, were protected under the First Amendment, and that providing aid or comfort to rioters did not necessarily constitute insurrection.
Donald Trump January 6Th 14Th Amendment Insurrection Supreme Court Presidential Immunity
United Kingdom Latest News, United Kingdom Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Massachusetts Supreme Court to Weigh Public Access to Juvenile Court Records in Harmony Montgomery CaseThe Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will hear arguments Monday in a case about whether records from the custody hearings for Harmony Montgomery, a 5-year-old girl who was slain in 2019, should be made public. Filmmaker Bill Lichtenstein, who is producing a documentary on the Massachusetts child protection and juvenile court systems, appealed to the high court seeking access to the records. He hopes they will shed light on why Harmony's father was granted custody despite his violent criminal history.
Read more »
Trump Loses Bid to Overturn 'Hush Money' Conviction Despite Supreme Court Immunity RulingDonald Trump's attempt to overturn his conviction in a New York hush money case has been rejected by a judge, despite a Supreme Court decision granting broad immunity for presidential actions. The ruling comes as Trump prepares to potentially return to the White House in January, marking the first time a former president has been convicted of a felony.
Read more »
TikTok Seeks Supreme Court Review of Ban Law as Trump Meets with CEOTikTok requested the Supreme Court to overturn a federal appeals court ruling upholding a law that could effectively ban the app in the US by January 19 unless its Chinese owner sells the company. This occurred on the same day President-elect Donald Trump met with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew.
Read more »
Trump Asks Supreme Court to Delay TikTok Sale DeadlineFormer President Donald Trump has requested a delay on the US Supreme Court's legislative deadline for TikTok's sale or ban, aiming for a 'political resolution' upon his return to office. The legislation, passed by Congress in April, mandates ByteDance, TikTok's Chinese parent company, to divest from the app by January 19, 2025, or face a nationwide ban. Trump asserts his administration possesses the necessary expertise and political will to negotiate a resolution that addresses national security concerns while preserving the platform.
Read more »
Trump Asks Supreme Court to Halt TikTok Ban Until He Takes OfficePresident-elect Donald Trump is seeking to delay a ban on TikTok until after he assumes office, arguing he can negotiate a resolution that addresses national security concerns.
Read more »
Trump Asks Supreme Court to Delay TikTok BanDonald Trump has requested the Supreme Court to postpone the sale or ban deadline of TikTok, aiming to negotiate a resolution after his inauguration.
Read more »