Trump survives early 14th Amendment challenges to keep him off ballot — for now

After a Colorado judge rules that former President Donald Trump “acted with the specific intent to incite political violence” on Jan 6, 2021, but allowed his name to remain on state ballots in the 2024 election, lawyers for the former president and the group who sued to keep him off ballots file separate appeals.

In Georgia’s sprawling election interference case, meanwhile, Judge Scott McAfee holds a hearing on whether to revoke bond for Trump co-defendant Harrison Floyd. Here’s the latest from the legal challenges facing the former president.

Jan. 6 election interference

Trump, plaintiffs appeal judge’s ruling in Colorado keeping former president on the ballot

Key players: Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)

• Lawyers for Trump and CREW, the nonprofit group representing six Colorado voters seeking to keep Trump from appearing on presidential ballots in 2024, filed appeals Monday of Wallace’s ruling last week, The Hill reported, that allows Trump to remain on ballots.

• In a partial victory for Trump, Wallace agreed with Trump’s lawyers that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution barring those who participated in “insurrection” from holding office did not specifically include presidents.

• But Wallace’s ruling also concluded “that Trump acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol with the purpose of disrupting the electoral certification.”

• In its appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court, CREW pointed to what it argued was the judge’s contradictory ruling.

• “Because the district court found that Trump engaged in insurrection after taking the Presidential oath of office, it should have concluded that he is disqualified from office and ordered the Secretary of State to exclude him from the Colorado presidential primary ballot,” the group wrote.

• While Trump’s lawyers applauded the part of Wallace’s ruling that allowed his name to remain on Colorado ballots, their appeal centers on her findings that the former president intended to incite political violence on Jan. 6. The judge, they said in their appeal, “made legal and factual findings wholly unsupported in the law, and these errors demand review.”

• Earlier this month, Minnesota’s Supreme Court refused to order Trump’s name be removed from Republican primary ballots, NBC News reported, but left open the question of his inclusion on general election ballots.

Why it matters: The Colorado case is likely to be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Wallace’s findings on Trump’s role in the riot at the Capitol are all but certain to be litigated.

Georgia election interference

Judge hears arguments for revoking bail for Trump co-defendant

Key players: Judge Scott McAfee, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, former Black Voices for Trump director Harrison Floyd, Fulton County election worker Ruby Freeman

• On Tuesday, McAfee will hear arguments from prosecutors and lawyers for Floyd about revoking his bail over social media posts that Willis contends have violated the terms of his release, the Associated Press reported.

• Floyd is charged with four felony counts in the election subversion case, including allegations of harassing Freeman.

• In her request to have Floyd’s bond revoked, Willis cited his recent posts on X, the social media site formerly known as Twitter, that included mentions of Freeman and attacks on other likely witnesses in the case.

• In a court filing, Floyd’s attorneys wrote that their client “neither threatened or intimidated anyone and certainly did not communicate with a witness or co-defendant directly or indirectly.”

Why it matters: While Trump has challenged gag orders issued by judges over his constant social media attacks on court officials as a violation of his free speech rights, Floyd is the first co-defendant in Georgia to make similar attacks. If McAfee revokes his bond, he could wind up back behind bars prior to the start of the trial.

Recommended reading

___________________

Monday, Nov. 20

___________________

A Washington, D.C., appeals court hears arguments for and against lifting Judge Tanya Chutkan’s gag order on former President Donald Trump in the federal election interference case and signals that it may scale back its overall scope. In New York, meanwhile, Judge Arthur Engoron denies a motion for a mistrial put forth by Trump’s lawyers on the grounds that he and his law clerk, Allison Greenfield, are unfairly biased against Trump. Here’s the latest on the legal cases facing the former president attempting a return to the White House in 2024.

Jan. 6 election interference

Appeals court hears arguments on Trump gag order in election interference case

Key players: Judge Tanya Chutkan, special counsel Jack Smith, Trump lawyer D. John Sauer, DOJ lawyer Cecil VanDevender, U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Patricia Millett

• On Monday, Sauer told a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals that the gag order Chutkan imposed on Trump amounted to a muzzling of “the core political speech of the leading candidate for president at the height of his reelection campaign,” NBC News reported.

• Chutkan’s order restricted Trump from attacking prosecutors, court staff and potential witnesses in the federal election interference case brought by Smith but allowed him to continue to go after the Biden administration and the Justice Department regarding the handling of the case. The appeals court paused the gag order earlier this month.

• VanDevender told the appeals court that Smith’s office had “been subject to multiple threats” following inflammatory remarks by the former president and argued the gag order should remain in place.

• The judges seemed skeptical of Sauer’s assertion that, despite possible threats made by his supporters, Trump should be granted “absolute freedom” to say whatever he wanted about the case.

• But the appeals court judges also signaled that they may scale back the original gag order to give Trump leeway in responding to those who criticize him, Politico reported. “We have to use a careful scalpel here,” Millett said.

• The appeals court did not issue a final ruling Monday.

Why it matters: Trump has sought to try all the cases against him in the court of public opinion, linking the charges against him with an alleged effort to keep him from becoming president again. Should the gag order be lifted, he would be free to continue sharply criticizing Smith’s team and those who may testify against him.

New York financial fraud

Engoron rejects Trump’s ‘nonsensical’ motion for mistrial

Key players: Judge Arthur Engoron, clerk Allison Greenfield, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Trump lawyer Christopher Kise

• On Friday, Engoron rejected a motion for a mistrial filed by Trump’s attorneys on the grounds that the judge and his law clerk were biased against them, Bloomberg reported.

• “As I have made clear over the course of this trial, my rulings are mine and mine alone,” Engoron wrote in his ruling. “There is absolutely no ‘co-judging’ at play.”

• He described the arguments made by Kise as “nonsensical,” writing “my principal law clerk does not make rulings or issue orders — I do.”

• Engoron added that “there is no factual or legal basis for a mistrial based on these allegations against my principal law clerk.”

• Kise had argued that Greenfield had exceeded the annual amount she was allowed to donate in political donations, but Engoron noted that information, which was taken from an editorial friendly to Trump, was false.

Why it matters: From the start of the $250 million fraud trial brought by James, Trump has sought to portray Engoron and Greenfield as biased against him. Engoron has already established that the defendants in the case are liable for years of inflating their business assets, and the proceedings will determine the punishment in the form of penalties Trump, his adult sons and their family business must pay the state.