Elections law expert Richard Briffault and Bloomberg Law Supreme Court Reporter Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson discuss attempts to keep Trump off the ballot, including legal challenges under the 14th Amendment. They also explore the implications of recent court rulings on voting rights and the pressure faced by federal public defenders. The podcast touches on the conservative nature of the eighth circuit and the expansion of the Second Amendment.
Challenges to former President Donald Trump's eligibility to be a presidential candidate based on his actions during the January 6th attack on the Capitol could have significant implications for future elections and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
A recent ruling by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals threatens to limit the ability of individuals to challenge voting rights violations under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which could have far-reaching implications for voting rights across the country.
Deep dives
Legal Challenges Under the 14th Amendment
A series of legal challenges have been brought against former President Donald Trump's eligibility to be a presidential candidate based on his actions during the January 6th attack on the Capitol. These challenges center around the interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrection against the Constitution from holding certain offices in the United States. Courts in Colorado, Michigan, and Minnesota have so far refused to disqualify Trump under this provision, although a judge in Colorado did find that he engaged in insurrection during the attack. The issue of whether the presidency is considered an office under the United States is also being debated. The ultimate resolution of these challenges remains uncertain, but it could have significant implications for future elections and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Challenges to the Voting Rights Act
The Voting Rights Act of 1965, a crucial piece of federal legislation protecting voting rights, has faced significant challenges in recent years. One key provision of the act, known as the preclearance requirement, was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013, removing crucial protections against discriminatory voting laws. Now, a recent ruling by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals threatens to deal another blow to the act. The ruling suggests that only the federal government can bring suits to enforce voting rights under Section 2 of the act, which prohibits discriminatory voting practices and procedures. This narrow interpretation could significantly limit the ability of individuals to challenge voting rights violations. The case may ultimately reach the Supreme Court, and the decision could have far-reaching implications for voting rights across the country.
Federal Public Defenders and Supreme Court Advocacy
Federal public defenders often face pressure to hand over their Supreme Court cases to more experienced advocates from elite law firms. This pressure arises from the limited number of cases heard by the Supreme Court each term. However, federal public defenders are forming support networks, such as the Defender Supreme Court Resource and Assistance Panel (D-Scrap), to provide guidance and assistance to fellow defenders preparing for Supreme Court arguments. These defenders bring valuable expertise in criminal law and practical experience, providing an important perspective in cases involving constitutional and criminal justice issues. The efforts of these defenders aim to ensure effective advocacy and prevent potential defense lapses before the Supreme Court.
Argument Over the Temporal Scope of the Armed Career Criminal Act
The Supreme Court recently heard a case regarding the temporal scope of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), which imposes significant mandatory minimum sentences for certain firearm offenses committed by individuals with prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses. The issue at hand is the relevant time period for determining the seriousness of the underlying offenses: whether it should be when the prior drug offense was committed, when the firearm offense was committed, or at the time of sentencing. Several lower courts have adopted different approaches, and the Supreme Court's decision will provide clarity on this matter. While the Court is unlikely to adopt the most backward-looking approach favored by the government, it remains to be seen which standard will prevail. This case highlights the complexity and significance of the ACCA and its impact on individuals facing severe penalties under federal law.
Elections law expert Richard Briffault, a professor at Columbia Law School, discusses the attempts to keep former President Donald Trump off the ballot in many states. Bloomberg Law Supreme Court Reporter Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson discusses how federal public defenders have developed support systems to help prepare for Supreme Court arguments. June Grasso hosts.