I really just need somebody, anybody, impacted by anything trump does to retain me to argue in federal court that he's not actually the president because of the 14A bar.
No, Trump v. Anderson doesn't foreclose it.
But need a plaintiff with standing
No, Trump v. Anderson doesn't foreclose it.
But need a plaintiff with standing
Reposted from
Allison Chapman
🚨 Trump will instruct the federal government tomorrow via an executive order to not recognize that transgender people exist and exclusively recognize people as their sex assigned at birth.
www.thefp.com/p/trumps-day...
www.thefp.com/p/trumps-day...
Comments
SCOTUS says action by congress is needed to enforce 14th - so argue the action was *already* taken when the laws were enacted that he was found to have broken. Argue SCOTUS failed to find the enforcing action
Would say in the 9th but the 9th will get dismissed as pure bias. You want a district and circuit that has a measure of respect on political issues
🙏 🙏 🙏
https://archive.ph/20250131201223/https://www.reuters.com/world/us/musk-aides-lock-government-workers-out-computer-systems-us-agency-sources-say-2025-01-31/
I'm reminded of DOMA making it a crime to report that you're married for immigration purposes and requiring. At GLAD, pretty sure we had clients who had to move back home.
14AS3 is explicitly about "holding" office, not campaigning, not being on a ballot, not receiving votes, not even being declared a winner.
(In my fantasy, Capitol police arrest him as soon as he takes his hand off the bible. Oh well.)
Dude is super smart: Everyone knows you can't be tried for breaking your oath if it wasn't a *real bible* oath. We're foiled again.
https://bsky.app/profile/danielsilliman.bsky.social/post/3lg72b3gosk2c
I think your answer is the more likely one, but it isn't legally clear (to me, anyway) that it's the only possible one
Again, I think your answer is the likely one. But it'd be a real question of first impression: are votes cast for a barred candidate valid he can't sit, or invalid?
The 25th amendment, weirdly, seems to assume that if the president responds that he can do his duties, he gets to continue to do them, even if he's actually been barred by Court and _can't_.
Huh. Very weird.
"In trump, Scotus discussed the need to avoid a patchwork of State rulings and rules and the lack of any delegation to the states to resolve this issue of federal law. Here, in contrast..."
But yeah, this is going to be a standing-rich environment.
2) the enforcement Act of 1870 does contain a private right of action and a duty on the local AUSA to enforce
3) General rule that courts apply the law
Bottom line: the argument is that a federal court decision, under regular process, doesn't raise
It also does not raise the butt Congress can lift the disability problem with barring candidates in advance
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-the-supreme-court-got-wrong-in-the-trump-section-3-case
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
We won't win in one fell swoop, so moving the needle is better than nothing.
What it can't be is a generalized citizens interest in having an eligible president