Category: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Local News

Washington — The Supreme Court on Thursday heard oral arguments in a blockbuster case over whether former President Donald Trump can be excluded from Colorado’s primary ballot over his actions surrounding the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The case hinges on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars officials who have sworn to support the Constitution from serving in government if they engage in insurrection. The provision was enacted in 1868 to prevent former Confederates from holding office, and laid mostly dormant for more than 150 years. 

A group of voters in Colorado challenged Trump’s eligibility for the White House, citing Jan. 6. A divided Colorado Supreme Court ruled in December that Section 3 meant Trump was ineligible for office and thus could not appear on the state’s primary election ballot. The court paused its ruling so Trump could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

During oral arguments in the case, known as Trump v. Anderson, lawyers for both sides and the Colorado secretary of state laid out their positions before the nation’s highest court. Many of the justices seemed skeptical of the idea that states could enforce Section 3 like Colorado did and appeared poised to let Trump remain on the ballot.

Here are five key takeaways from the oral arguments:

Roberts calls Colorado voters’ position “ahistorical”

An exchange between Chief Justice John Roberts and Jason Murray, a Colorado attorney appearing on behalf of the voters who brought the case, seemed to encapsulate the justices’ concerns with upholding the Colorado ruling.

“The whole point of the 14th Amendment was to restrict state power,” Roberts said. “On the other hand it augmented federal power under Section 5 — Congress has the power to enforce it. So wouldn’t that be the last place that you’d look for authorization for the states, including Confederate states, to enforce — implicitly authorized to enforce the presidential election process? That seems to be a position that is at war with the whole thrust of the 14th Amendment and very ahistorical.”

Murray pointed to Article II of the Constitution, saying it gives states “broad power” to run their elections. Roberts countered that “the narrower power you’re looking for is the power of disqualification, right? That is a very specific power in the 14th Amendment and you’re saying that was implicitly extended to the states under a clause that doesn’t address that at all.”

The chief justice warned that a ruling finding states can enforce Section 3 on their own would open the door to a partisan tit-for-tat that would place the presidential election in the hands of a narrow sliver of states.

“If Colorado’s position is upheld, surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side, and some of those will succeed,” he said.

“I would expect that a goodly number of states will say, whoever the Democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot. And others, for the Republican candidate, you’re off the ballot, and it’ll come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election,” Roberts continued. “That’s a pretty daunting consequence.”

Murray replied: “The fact that there are potential frivolous applications of a provision is not a reason —” 

“Well, no, hold on. You might think they’re frivolous, but the people who are bringing them may not think they are frivolous,” Roberts interjected. “‘Insurrection’ is a broad term. And if there’s some debate about it, I suppose that will go into the decision and then eventually, what, we would be deciding whether there was an insurrection when one president did something as opposed to when somebody else did something else? And what do we do, do we wait until near the time of counting the ballots, and kind of go through which states are valid and which states aren’t?”

Murray said: “There’s a reason Section 3 has been dormant for 150 years. And it’s because we haven’t seen anything like Jan. 6 since Reconstruction. Insurrection against the Constitution is something extraordinary.” His response prompted Roberts to remark that he was “avoiding the question.”

There was little discussion about Jan. 6 and whether Trump “engaged in insurrection”

Though it was Trump’s conduct surrounding the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol that led the Colorado Supreme Court to deem him ineligible under Section 3, little time during the two hours of arguments was devoted to the attack and whether Trump incited the mob of his supporters, as the voters allege.

Jonathan Mitchell, a Texas-based lawyer who argued on behalf of Trump, denied that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection, as the Colorado Supreme Court concluded.

“For an insurrection, there needs to be an organized, concerted effort to overthrow the government of the United States through violence,” he said. “This was a riot. It was not an insurrection. The events were shameful, criminal, violent, all those things, but they did not qualify as an insurrection as that term is used in Section 3.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that Congress has enacted a mechanism to prohibit insurrectionists from holding office: The Insurrection Act, which was passed decades before the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.

“That tool exists, you agree, and could be used against someone who committed insurrection,” he told Murray.

While Trump is being criminally prosecuted for his alleged efforts to subvert the transfer of power after the 2020 presidential election, he is not charged with violating the Insurrection Act. The former president has pleaded not guilty to the four charges brought against him by special counsel Jack Smith.

The justices questioned whether Section 3 applies to presidents

The main argument advanced by Trump’s lawyers is that Section 3 does not apply to him as a former president nor to the office of the presidency, which he is seeking. Their position rests on two phrases in the clause: “office … under the United States” and “officer of the United States.”

Neither the president nor presidency should be covered by those two phrases, Mitchell argued. He also asserted in court filings that the presidential oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution is different from an oath to “support” it, which is the oath described in Section 3.

“You have a list, and ‘president’ is not on it,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson told Mitchell.

She raised a similar point later to Murray, questioning why the drafters of Section 3 did not “put the word ‘president’ in the very enumerated list in Section 3.”

Acknowledging that the text of the provision may be ambiguous as to whether it covers the president and presidency, Jackson questioned, “Why would we construe it … against democracy?”

Jackson later said the history of the 14th Amendment provides the reason for why the presidency may not be covered by Section 3.

“The pressing concern, at least as I see the historical record, was actually what was going on at lower levels of the government, the possible infiltration and embedding of insurrectionists into the state government apparatus and the real risk that former Confederates might return to power in the South via state-level elections either in local offices or as representatives of the states in Congress,” she told Mitchell. “And that’s a very different lens.”

The voters had argued in filings that Trump’s argument amounts to a loophole available only to him: Because he did not serve in public office before winning the White House in 2016, Trump is the only former president besides George Washington who has never before sworn an oath to “support” the Constitution.

Mitchell told Justice Sonia Sotomayor that his argument that the president is excluded from the phrase “officer of the United States” is the stronger one, though she pushed back.

“A bit of a gerrymandered rule, isn’t it, designed to benefit only your client?” Sotomayor said.

She continued: “Just so we’re clear, under that reading, only the petitioner is disqualified because virtually every other president except Washington has taken an oath to support the Constitution, correct?”

A 155-year-old case is raised repeatedly

One of the most dominant lines of questioning from the justices involved whether Section 3 is “self-executing,” or whether it requires legislation from Congress to be enforced.

Trump’s lawyers pointed to a 1869 decision from Chief Justice Salmon Chase in a case involving a criminal defendant named Caesar Griffin. Chase’s opinion is considered the first major judicial opinion on Section 3. In it, he determined that the provision was not self-executing and could only be enforced through an act of Congress.

But Chase was sitting as a circuit court judge in Virginia at the time he issued his opinion, so it is not Supreme Court precedent. He also reached the opposite conclusion in the treason prosecution against Jefferson Davis, the former president of the Confederacy. Serving as a circuit judge in that instance as well, Chase said he agreed with Davis’ lawyers that Section 3 “executes itself.”

Kavanaugh argued that Chase’s opinion in the Griffin case is still relevant for determining the original meaning of Section 3.

“It’s by the chief justice of the United States a year after the Fourteenth Amendment,” he said. “That seems to me highly probative of what the meaning or understanding of that language, otherwise elusive language, is.”

Kavanaugh later said it could be argued that Griffin’s case is the reason why Section 3 has so seldom been used. Until the Colorado Supreme Court ruling, it had never been used to disqualify a presidential candidate.

“I think the reason it’s been dormant is because there’s been a settled understanding that Chief Justice Chase, even if not right in every detail, was essentially right, and the branches of the government have acted under that settled understanding for 155 years,” he said.

Kagan hints at potential consensus over “broader principle” of state and federal power

Roberts’ concerns about states having the power to decide whether a candidate is ineligible under Section 3 were echoed by his colleagues on the conservative and liberal wings of the bench. 

Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court’s three liberal members, seemed to offer a path for the justices to reach consensus in a pair of exchanges with Murray. 

“Maybe put most boldly, I think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States,” she said. “In other words, this question of whether a former president is disqualified for insurrection to be president again is, you know, just say it, it sounds awfully national to me. So whatever means there are to enforce, it would suggest that they have to be federal, national means.”

Kagan continued: “If you weren’t from Colorado and you were from Wisconsin or you were from Michigan and what the Michigan secretary of state did is going to make the difference between whether candidate A is elected or candidate B is elected, that seems quite extraordinary, doesn’t it?”

Later, Kagan pointed to a case from 1983 known as Anderson v. Celebrezze, in which the court ruled that an Ohio filing deadline for independent candidates was unconstitutional.

“We said, in fact, states are limited in who they can take off a ballot, and that was a case about minor party candidates, but the reason was that one state’s decision to take a candidate off the ballot affects everybody else’s rights. And we talked about the pervasive national interest in the selection of candidates for national office. We talked about how an individual state’s decision would have an impact beyond its own borders,” Kagan said, asking Murray why the same principle shouldn’t apply in the Trump case.

Murray countered that the Anderson case dealt with issues under the First Amendment. In the Colorado case, he said, “there’s no real First Amendment problem, and a state is just trying to enforce an existing qualification that’s baked into our constitutional fabric.”

Kagan disagreed. 

“There’s a broader principle there, and it’s a broader principle about who has power over certain things in our federal system. And within our federal system, states have great power over many different areas. But there’s some broader principle, that there are certain national questions where states are not the repository of authority,” Kagan said. “Like, what’s a state doing deciding who gets to, who other citizens get to vote for for president?”

News

Check phillymag.com each morning Monday through Thursday for the latest edition of Philly Today. And if you have a news tip for our hardworking Philly Mag reporters, please direct it here. You can also use that form to send us reader mail. We love reader mail!

Wild Biker Cody Heron Pleads Guilty in Infamous Philadelphia Road-Rage Case

Just over four months after he stomped out the rear windshield of a family’s car while kids sat in the back seat, then pulled a gun on their mom when she heroically got out of the car to confront him — all caught on a very, very viral video — 27-year-old motorcycle rider Cody Heron has admitted his guilt.

Heron and his lawyer, Justin Charles Capek, showed up in courtroom 905 of the Criminal Justice Center on Wednesday morning and entered a guilty plea. Heron pleaded guilty to two first-degree felony counts of aggravated assault — a special version of the charge used when the victims are under the age of 13 and the defendant is an adult — and one misdemeanor count of possessing an instrument of crime. Prosecutors agreed to drop the bevy of other charges in exchange for his guilty plea.

The motorcycle Cody Heron was riding that night (photo courtesy Philadelphia Police Department)

Heron remains in custody at Riverside Correctional Facility in Northeast Philadelphia pending sentencing, which the judge scheduled for June 5th. The maximum penalty for the specified crimes is 45 years in jail. But Capek says he’s hopeful for a sentencing recommendation of three to six years. Plus, he believes Heron is a prime candidate for Pennsylvania’s Motivational Boot Camp program.

That’s a military-style diversionary program in rural Pennsylvania that includes 5:30 a.m. wakeup — with reveille, no less — physically intensive drills, and lots of educational and therapeutic components. Heron could start the six-month boot camp as early as October, and if he completes it successfully, he’s virtually guaranteed immediate parole — meaning he could be out well before his 29th birthday in 2025.

“The date of this incident captured Cody Heron at his absolute worst,” Capek tells Philly Mag. “He is thankful that no one was physically injured as a result of his conduct. And he remains committed to making amends for his actions. He looks forward to apologizing to the victims and presenting further mitigating evidence to the court in advance of his sentencing hearing.”

Tragic News Expected After East Lansdowne Fire

If you were anywhere near a television last night, you probably saw coverage of the devastating fire and shooting of police on a residential street in East Lansdowne, Delaware County.

On Wednesday afternoon, police responded to a call of a child being shot at a home. But when police arrived on the scene, somebody — and it’s currently unknown exactly who — opened fire on them, wounding two officers.

A fire erupted in the home. But firefighters were unable to battle the blaze until police cleared the area, since there had been an active shooter. The home was soon engulfed in flames and destroyed, and adjacent homes caught fire as well.

As Wednesday turned into Thursday, one thing became tragically clear: At least six people in the home were unaccounted for. And as of Thursday morning, that was still the case, leading investigators to contend with the possibility that they will find many human remains.

“It is our terrible fear that they may be inside that house when it was burned,” Delaware County District Attorney Jack Stollsteimer said at a press conference. “We are hopeful that that is not true.”

By the Numbers

$48.3 billion: Total of the proposed spending plan that Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro unveiled this week in Harrisburg. He also wants the state to legalize recreational marijuana. Note that most states that share a border with Pennsylvania — including Maryland, Ohio, New Jersey, Delaware, and New York — have already approved recreational weed. (West Virginia is trying.)

10: Additional nonstop destinations from Philadelphia just announced by discount carrier Frontier Airlines. They include the following: Knoxville; Portland, Maine; Milwaukee; Detroit; Chicago O’Hare; Indianapolis; Columbus; Kansas City; and Pensacola.

0 percent: Chance that you’ll make it through any of those flights thinking, “Wow, Frontier is just the best!”

Local Talent

Wednesday night finally brought the third season of Abbott Elementary, the Philly-based hit sitcom from the brain of Philly native Quinta Brunson that also stars Sheryl Lee Ralph, wife of Pennsylvania State Senator Vincent Hughes. The special hour-long episode had some fun twists. And if you missed it live on 6 ABC, you can stream it on Hulu starting today.

And from the Yet-Again Sports Desk …

The Sixers played host to the Warriors last night, and thank God, Tyrese Maxey was well enough to start (there were rumors of illness), along with Tobias Harris, Kelly Oubre, Paul Reed and Jaden Springer. A whole lotta folks were on the injured or ill list: Joel Embiid, of course, but also De’Anthony Melton, Robert Covington, Nic Batum and Marcus Morris. Our shorthanded team had a good start, up 22-15 after the first quarter thanks to solid D, especially by Springer on Stephen Curry.

Steph Curry scored 0 in the 1st Qtr

*First time since 2014😭 pic.twitter.com/IrTOK53KQR

— Jaden Springer Muse (@SpringerMuse) February 8, 2024

Steph didn’t get his first points (on free throws, at that) until there were three minutes to go in the half, which ended with the Warriors up 48-45. And then it all went to hell, as an 8-0 Warriors run in the third gave them a 71-52 lead. Not good. Again. Crapola.

What’s the point when Embiid is out for 2 months lmao

— ag (@ag15i) February 8, 2024

Andrew Wiggins was hot even if Steph wasn’t; he ended up with 21 points. Poor Tyrese played through it for this?

The Warriors SMOKE the Sixers in Philly.

They’ve now lost 7 of their last 8. 😬 pic.twitter.com/SR00Bqm2fU

— theScore (@theScore) February 8, 2024

Any (Better) College Hoops News?

You wish. St. Louis dropped by La Salle last night and took the lead early even though the Billikens had a much worse (8-14) record than the Explorers (11-11). They kept that lead through the half, too, which saw La Salle down 51-39. Matters just got worse from there on. Final tally: 102-84.

Villanova had a dismal start to its game against Xavier in Cincinnati but got their act together and tied it at 19-19 with five minutes left in the first half — and then took the lead for the first time. They were ahead at the half, 28-26. But after the break, the Musketeers inched ahead until a TJ Bamba layup tied it again, 50-50, with 5:17 to go. The ’Cats stalled there, not scoring again for nearly four minutes, and the clock finally ran out on a 56-53 Xavier win.

Tonight, Drexel travels to UNC-Wilmington and Memphis is at Temple, both tipping off at 7 p.m.

The Flyers also played.

All Philly Today sports coverage is provided by Sandy Hingston.