This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . The next check for changes will be

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-68470315#0

The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
US Supreme Court strikes down effort to disqualify Trump from Colorado primary election - BBC News US Supreme Court strikes down effort to disqualify Trump from Colorado primary election - BBC News
(32 minutes later)
Sam CabralSam Cabral
US reporterUS reporter
This morning's ruling was made in what is known as a "per curiam opinion", meaning that it does not specify who wrote the opinion. There should be no surprise that the court unanimously rejected this effort, because the justices' scepticism was clear at last month's hearing, says Ray Brescia.
The reliance on per curiam "means that [the opinion] carries less weight", University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias argues. The Albany Law School professor tells the BBC there were "enough off ramps" for the court to choose not to engage with the question of whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection.
"The concurrences by four justices reveal more about the Court’s thinking" and the internal dissent that comprises this unanimous decision, he says. Instead they focused on "a denial of due process" that would result from an individual state taking unilateral action and creating the danger of "a patchwork of states with different processes", he says.
Tobias notes that the liberal justices expressly state that the "If the court was to allow Colorado to proceed in this way, what's to stop some rogue prosecutor in another state from saying that a candidate from a different party is not a viable candidate because they engaged in insurrection?" he asks.
“majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can Brescia adds that Justice Barrett's opinion - emphasising their unanimity over amplifying their disagreement - "was squarely aimed at her liberal colleagues" who made clear they agreed with the judgment but not all of the opinion.
bar an oath-breaking insurrectionist from becoming President [and] protest the But, he says, "less than a week after they took the immunity case, on a non-accelerated schedule, I think that that was quite rich of her".
majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement
of that provision".
Because three concurring Justices “would decide only the issue
before us, [they] concur only in the judgment".
FacebookFacebook
TwitterTwitter
ShareView more share optionsShare this postCopy this linkRead more about these links.ShareView more share optionsShare this postCopy this linkRead more about these links.
Copy this linkCopy this link