Supreme Court overturns Trump Colorado ballot ban in unanimous ruling

CAPITOL.

WE'LL SEND IT BACK TO YOU.

I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE THE

OPINION.

>> Bill: THANK YOU.

SHALL WE?

ROLL IT, FOLKS.

THIS NOW IS A FOX NEWS ALERT AND

READING THIS.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULES IN

FAVOR OF FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD

TRUMP IN HIS APPEAL OF A

COLORADO BALLOT

DISQUALIFICATION.

THAT APPLIES TO COLORADO AND IN

ALL LIKELIHOOD, IT WILL APPLY TO

OTHER STATES AS WELL.

LIVE TO SHANNON FOR HER INITIAL

ANALYSIS AND REACTION NOW.

DID YOU HAVE THE INSIDE WORD,

SHANNON?

HELLO.

>> OK, WHAT WE HAVE IN THE COURT

THIS MORNING IS THIS DECISION IN

FAVOR OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THEY ESSENTIALLY SAY THE

JUDGMENT OF THE COLORADO SUPREME

COURT THAT HE CAN BE KICKED OFF

THE BALLOT IN THIS MANNER DOES

NOT STAND.

HAS TO BE OVERTURNED.

IT'S AN OPINION, THE LATIN FOR

THAT IS THE COURT SPEAKS.

SUPPOSED TO BE SORT OF A UNIFIED

VOICE.

BUT WE DO, AS I'M LOOKING

THROUGH, ADDITIONAL FOLKS WHO

WROTE.

JUSTIN -- JUSTICE BARRETT AND I

BELIEVE OTHER JUSTICES WRITE

CONCURRENCES AS WELL.

THEY MAY HAVE GOTTEN TO THIS IN

A DIFFERENT WAY.

I DON'T SEE ANY DISSENTS HERE.

IT SOUNDS LIKE THE COURT AS A

WHOLE IS AGREED WHATEVER

HAPPENED WITH COLORADO, IT WAS

NOT THE PROPER FRAMEWORK TO USE

HERE.

THERE IS DISCUSSION AT THE END

OF THE MAIN DECISION THAT SAYS,

YOU KNOW, THERE WOULD BE

ESSENTIALLY A PATCHWORK ACROSS

THE STATE.

SO THIS WAS ONE OF THE WORRIES

THAT THE JUSTICES HAD AND THE

QUESTIONS THAT CAME TOGETHER IN

ARGUMENT WERE, WHAT HAPPENS IF

WE TELL ONE STATE THEY CAN DO

THIS?

THE CHIEF JUSTICE SAID WHAT IF

ONE STATE DECIDES, OK BE I'M

KICKING OFF A REPUBLICAN AND

ANOTHER STATE SAYS OK, I'M

KICKING OFF A DEMOCRAT?

AND THEN WE GET DOWN TO JUST A

HANDFUL OF STATES THAT HAVE ALL

OF THE CANDIDATES' NAMES ON THE

BALLOT, WHAT WOULD THAT DO TO

THIS COUNTRY?

IT SOUNDS LIKE THE MAJORITY OF

THE COURT HAS COME TOGETHER IN

THIS VOICE TO SAY WHAT HAPPENED

IN COLORADO IS NOT CORRECT.

IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE SAYING

STATES DON'T HAVE THIS POWER.

BUT ESSENTIALLY, THIS IS

SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE LEFT TO

CONGRESS.

AND SO THEY AGREED TO THAT

POINT, BUT HOW THEY GOT TO THESE

DIFFERENT POSITIONS AND HOW THEY

GOT TO THE AGREEMENT, THEY FOUND

SOME DIFFERENT MAPS THERE.

THEY GOT TO THE SAME END RESULT,

GUYS.

>> Dana: I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS

FOR YOU.

ONE IS ABOUT SOTOMAYOR, ONE THAT

MIGHT DISAGREE.

ALSO, DOES THIS MEAN FOR ANY

OTHER STATE THAT'S THINKING

ABOUT THIS LIKE ILLINOIS, FOR

EXAMPLE, THAT IF THEY'RE

THINKING OF TRYING TO KEEP TRUMP

OFF THE BALLOT, THAT THEY WOULD

BE BARRED FROM DOING SO BASED ON

THIS DECISION?

>> YEAH, WHAT I'VE SEEN SO FAR

OF THIS AND I'M TRYING TO READ

THROUGH HERE, IT SOUNDS LIKE

WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THE

STATES DON'T HAVE THIS POWER.

SO THAT WOULD MEAN ANY STATE

ESSENTIALLY SAYING THIS IS

SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN

LEFT TO CONGRESS.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO, YOU KNOW,

THERE'S QUESTIONS NOT TO GET TOO

WONKY BUT ABOUT THE 14TH

AMENDMENT IF IT WAS

SELF-EXECUTING, IF STATES COULD

PICK IT UP AND SAY WE FIND

SOMEONE WE THINK WAS GUILTY OF

INSURRECTION AND SO WE'RE SAYING

THEY CAN'T BE ON OUR BALLOT.

THERE WAS QUESTION, THOUGH,

WHETHER CONGRESS HAS TO GIVE

SOME FRAMEWORK FOR ACTUALLY

KICKING SOMEONE OFF THE BALLOT

OR MAKING A DECISION ABOUT

KICKING SOMEONE OFF THE BALLOT.

IT SOUNDS LIKE HERE, THEY SAY

THE DISRUPTION TO ALLOW STATES

WOULD BE ACUTE AND COULD NULLIFY

THE VOTE OF MILLIONS AND CHANGE

THE ELECTION RESULT AT DIFFERENT

TIMES.

THEY SAY ENFORCING SECTION THREE

AGAINST FEDERAL OFFICE HOLDERS

AND CANDIDATES RESTS WITH

CONGRESS AND NOT THE STATES.

SO THE JUDGMENT OF THE COLORADO

SUPREME COURT CANNOT STAND.

THAT SOUNDS LIKE A CLEAR MESSAGE

WITHOUT HAVING READ THE ENTIRE

OPINION, BUT CLEAR MESSAGE THAT

STATES DO NOT HAVE THE POWER.

>> Dana: WE SHOULD LET YOU KEEP

READING.

>> Bill: WE'LL ALLOW YOU A

MOMENT TO GET A FEW PARAGRAPHS

INTO YOUR BIG BRAIN, SHANNON.

LET'S MOVE TO OUR TEAM NOW.

JONATHAN, YOU'RE FIRST UP TO

REACT.

HOW DO YOU HEAR IT?

>> I'VE JUST BEEN READING THE

OPINION.

IT'S OBVIOUSLY A SWEEPING.

THERE AREN'T ANY REAL DISSENTS

SO IT DOES LOOK LIKE IT IS

UNANIMOUS, AT LEAST ON THE

RESULT, WHAT THEY HAVE A

DISAGREEMENT ON IS WHETHER THE

COURT HAD TO GO AS FAR AS IT

DID.

NOW, THE MOST PRACTICAL RESULT

OF THIS IS THAT THE VOTERS WILL

BE ABLE TO VOTE FOR THE

CANDIDATE THAT THEY PREFER.

THIS WAS A CRITICAL MOMENT FOR

THIS COURT IN HISTORY.

AFTER ALL OF THE YEARS WE HAVE

SPENT IN THIS REPUBLIC, WE CAME

TO A POINT WHERE THESE STATES

CLAIMED THAT THEY COULD

UNILATERALLY BAR THE LEADING

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FROM

BALLOTS TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM

VOTING FOR DONALD TRUMP.

THE COURT HERE SPOKE WITH A

STRONG AND IT APPEARS UNANIMOUS

VOICE, AT LEAST ON THE RESULT,

THAT THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

THAT VOTERS WILL VOTE.

THEY'LL MAKE THEIR OWN VERDICT

REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS IN

CASES INVOLVING PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THEY WILL CAST THE MOST

IMPORTANT VERDICT OF ALL.

THEY WILL VOTE FOR THE NEXT

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> Bill: STAND BY THERE, SIR.

LET'S GET ANOTHER OPINION IN

HERE.

ANDY MCCARTHY, WHAT'S YOUR READ?

>> I THINK JONATHAN IS RIGHT

ABOUT THE BOTTOM LINE SWEEPING

9-0 DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE

STATES.

BUT I THINK THAT THIS CASE IS

ACTUALLY A 5-4 CASE ON WHAT MAY

BE THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISION.

IF I'M READING THIS RIGHT, WHAT

THEY'RE SAYING IS SECTION 3

CANNOT BE ENFORCED UNLESS

CONGRESS LEGISLATES THROUGH

SECTION 5 OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT

WHICH IT HAS DONE IN ENACTING A

CRIMINAL STATUTE WHICH WOULD

ALLOW SOMEONE TO BE CONVICTED OF

INSURRECTION.

WHAT I GLEAN FROM THIS IS

THEY'RE SAYING IN THE NEXT

JANUARY 6TH, NEXT TIME THAT

CONGRESS IS CALLED ON TO RATIFY

AN ELECTION RESULT THAT CONGRESS

CANNOT USE SECTION 3 OF THE 14TH

AMENDMENT TO TRY TO DENY DONALD

TRUMP THE PRESIDENCY IF HE WINS

THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WHICH

IS PRETTY MOMENTOUS AND IT LOOKS

TO ME LIKE JUSTICE BARRETT AND

THE THREE PROGRESSIVES ON THE

COURT ARE UNHAPPY THAT THE COURT

REACHED AND DECIDED THAT.

>> Dana: SHANNON, NOW THAT

YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE MAYBE TO

TAKE ANOTHER LOOK HERE.

ANYTHING ABOUT THE SOTOMAYOR

KEAGAN JACKSON CONTINGENT?

>> YES.

YEAH.

I THINK ANDY IS EXACTLY RIGHT

THERE.

AND WHAT PROFESSOR TURLEY SAID

AS WELL.

THERE'S NOT A DISSENT.

THEY CONCUR ON THE JUDGMENT BUT

THEY SAY THEY DON'T THINK THE

COURT SHOULD HAVE GONE TO ALL

THESE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT

THEY DID.

THEY SAID IT WAS ENOUGH AND

JUSTICE BARRETT SAID IN HER

CONCURRENCE, TOO, TO GET TO

BOTTOM LINE THAT STATES CANNOT

DO THIS.

IT'S NOT IN THEIR PURVIEW TO DO

IT.

BUT THE DISSENT, AGAIN, NOT

DISSENTERS, CONCURRENCES THAT

COME FROM JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR,

KEAGAN AND JACKSON TAKES A

DIFFERENT PATH.

THEY THINK THE COURT GOES TOO

FAR.

BY RESOLVING THESE EXTRA

QUESTIONS, THE MAJORITY ATTEMPTS

TO INSULATE ALL ALLEGED

INSURRECTIONISTS FROM FUTURE

CHALLENGES TO THEIR HOLDING

FEDERAL OFFICE.

THEY FEEL LIKE THE COURT WENT

TOO FAR.

YOU TRY TO GO AS NARROWLY AS

POSSIBLE.

AGAIN, THEY AGREE WITH THE

OVERALL DECISION.

BUT THINK THAT THE COURT IS

TRYING TO GIVE TOO MUCH COVER TO

FUTURE CANDIDATES WHO MAY FACE

THIS SCENARIO AND THEY JUST

DON'T THINK THE COURT SHOULD

HAVE GONE THOSE EXTRA STEPS.

>> Bill: I'M GOING TO SHOW OUR

VIEWERS THIS MAP HERE, GUYS, IF

WE COULD.

I HOPE I'VE GOT THE NUMBERS

RIGHT, CORRECT ME IF I'M MISSING

A FEW.

IT APPEARS THAT AT LEAST NINE

STATES, ALL RIGHT, THIS APPLIES

TO COLORADO.

BUT ILLINOIS HAS A SIMILAR

CHARGE, SO DOES THE STATE OF

MAINE.

MAINE IS IN SUPER TUESDAY

TOMORROW.

THEN EVERYTHING YOU SEE IN

YELLOW HAS A CASE THAT'S

PENDING.

DOES THIS NULLIFY ALL OF THOSE?

OR SOME OF THOSE?

OR NONE OF THOSE?

>> IF YOU'RE ASKING ME, I THINK

WE'D PROBABLY AGREE THESE STATES

HAVE LOST THE ABILITY TO DO

THAT.

I'LL LET MY FELLOW PANELISTS

ANSWER.

>> Bill: ARE ALL THESE CASES

DONE?

>> I THINK THEY'RE ALL DEAD AS

DILLINGER.

WHEN YOU READ THIS OPINION,

THERE'S NO DISSENT THAT THE

STATES CANNOT ENFORCE THE 14TH

AMENDMENT PROVISION.

THE ONLY DISAGREEMENT, AS WE'VE

BEEN DISCUSSING, IS WHETHER THE

COURT SHOULD HAVE GONE EVEN

FURTHER TO SORT OF CLOSE OFF

FUTURE ARGUMENTS OR CHALLENGES

WITHOUT AN ACTION FROM CONGRESS.

THE MAJORITY IS SAYING THAT,

LOOK, YOU NEED CONGRESS TO ACT

HERE BEFORE YOU CAN ENFORCE THIS

PROVISION.

SOME OF THE JUSTICES FELT THEY

DIDN'T REALLY TO DEAL WITH THAT

QUESTION.

THEY DIDN'T SAY, BY THE WAY,

THAT THEY DISAGREE WITH THE

CONCLUSION NECESSARILY AS MUCH

AS THAT IS A BIT OF A REACH

BEYOND WHERE THEY NEED TO GO.

AND THEY ARE SAYING LOOK, WE

HAVE A LONG TRADITION OF

MINIMIZING OUR FOOTPRINT OF

TRYING TO STAY CONFINED TO THE

QUESTION AT HAND.

THAT'S NOT MUCH OF A

DISAGREEMENT.

YOU KNOW, KEEP IN MIND THAT FOR

MONTHS NOW, THIS HAS BEEN

LITERALLY CALLED AN UNASSAILABLE

THEORY, VARIOUS PROFESSORS AND

COLUMNISTS HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT

THE ONLY THING THAT WILL STOP

THE DISQUALIFICATION OF DONALD

TRUMP ARE THE CONSERVATIVE

JUSTICES ACTING AS POLITICAL

ROBOTS.

WELL, THIS IS A UNANIMOUS COURT

REJECTING THAT THEORY.

>> Dana: WHAT'S INTERESTING,

ANDY, IS THIS IS OBVIOUSLY NO

DOUBT A BIG WIN FOR PRESIDENT

TRUMP.

BIG WIN AT THE HIGHEST COURT IN

THE LAND.

IT ALSO MAKES THE BIDEN TEAM

HAVE TO LIVE IN REALITY THAT

THESE COURT CASES ARE NOT GOING

TO BE THE THING THAT GETS TRUMP

OFF THE BALLOTS OR OUT OF THE

RACE.

THAT THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO

RUN AGAINST HIM.

AND WHAT I'M WONDERING IS AND I

KNOW YOU CAN'T TELL THE FUTURE,

CRYSTAL BALL.

THERE ARE OTHER CASES THAT

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ASKED THE

SUPREME COURT TO LOOK AT.

WITH THIS RULING AND THIS KIND

OF RESULT AND UNANIMITY AT LEAST

ON THE FACT THAT THE STATES

CAN'T DO THIS UNILATERALLY

UNLESS CONGRESS ACTS IN THOSE

OTHER PROVISIONS WHICH THEY'RE

NOT GOING TO DO, DOES THAT MEAN

THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP MIGHT HAVE

A BETTER POSITION GOING INTO THE

COURT ON THOSE OTHER CASES AS

WELL?

>> I DON'T THINK SO, DANA.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, FIRST OF ALL,

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IN TERMS OF

MINIMIZING ITS FOOTPRINT AS

JONATHAN REFERRED TO WHAT THIS

COURT WANTS TO MAKE CLEAR IS IT

IS NOT DECIDING THE 2024

ELECTION.

THIS DECISION HAS BEEN CRAFTED

IN A WAY THAT DEPENDING ON WHAT

HAPPENS IN THE ELECTION THE

COURT IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING

DON'T COME BACK TO US AFTER THE

ELECTION AND HAVE DEMOCRATS IN

CONGRESS TRYING TO DISQUALIFY

TRUMP UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE

14TH AMENDMENT.

THAT'S DONE.

WE'RE NOT DOING THAT.

HOWEVER, THEY'RE GEARING UP FOR

A SEPTEMBER TRIAL OF TRUMP IN

THE JANUARY 6TH CASE.

YOU CAN SEE THAT ALREADY FROM

THE REPORTING LAST WEEK WHERE

THE JACK SMITH PROSECUTION TEAM

BASICALLY TRASHED WHAT

PREVIOUSLY HAS BEEN KNOWN AS THE

UNWRITTEN 60-DAY RULE WHERE THE

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SUPPOSEDLY

WON'T TAKE ACTION.

THAT MIGHT INFLUENCE AN

ELECTION.

THEY SAID LAST WEEK THAT'S WANT

OPERATIVE.

"THE NEW YORK TIMES" IN ITS

REPORTING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR

CASE THAT CAME DOWN TODAY NOTED

THAT IF THE COURT KEPT THE SAME

PACE WITH RESPECT TO THE

IMMUNITY CASE AS THEY'VE KEPT

WITH THIS SECTION 3 CASE, THAT

WOULD OPEN UP THE DOOR TO HAVE A

SEPTEMBER TRIAL OF THE JANUARY

6TH CASE IN WASHINGTON.

SO I THINK THE DEMOCRATS ARE

VERY MUCH BANKING ON COURT

ACTION TO HURT TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN

MAYBE FATALLY, AND I THINK THE

SUPREME COURT IS SAYING, YOU

KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO BE

INVOLVED IN THIS COME AFTER

ELECTION DAY WHEN SOMEBODY COMES

TO US AND ASKS US TO DISQUALIFY

HIM.

>> Bill: THAT'S REALLY

INTERESTING.

YOU AND TURLEY AND SHANNON,

YOU'VE BEEN TELLING US FOR A

MONTH THAT THIS DECISION WOULD

BE -- EVEN ON THE DAY IT WAS

ARGUED, YOU SAID IT'S 8-1, 9-0.

AND ALL THREE OF YOU WERE RIGHT

ON THAT.

AMY BARRETT SAYS, I THINK IT'S

HER LAST LINE.

ALL NINE JUSTICES AGREE IN THE

OUTCOME OF THIS CASE.

THAT'S THE MESSAGE THAT

AMERICANS SHOULD TAKE HOME.

SO THIS WAS ARGUED ON THE 8TH OF

FEBRUARY.

IT WAS RENDERED TODAY, RIGHT,

MARCH 4TH.

THAT'S 25 DAYS?

I MEAN, SHANNON, YOU'D ADMIT

THAT'S LIGHTNING FAST FOR THE

U.S. SUPREME COURT.

AND SO NOW, WE'VE GOT THIS

IMMUNITY CASE, THE THIRD WEEK OF

APRIL.

AND YOU'VE ALL BEEN TELLING US

THAT IT'S QUITE POSSIBLE THEY

COULD ISSUE A DECISION ON THAT

BY THE END OF JUNE.

WHAT I THINK IS REALLY

INTERESTING ABOUT THE TIMING

THERE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE

CALENDAR, FOR THE PAST COUPLE OF

YEARS AND WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS

SHOW FOR A WHILE SO WE KNOW IT'S

REALLY NOT THE LAST WEEK OF

JUNE, RIGHT, SHANNON?

LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, THEY BLEED

INTO THE FIRST WEEK OF JULY.

AND THIS YEAR, MONDAY IS JULY

1ST.

TUESDAY JULY 2ND.

WEDNESDAY IS JULY 3RD.

THEN AMERICA GOES OFF ON ITS BIG

HOLIDAY WEEKEND.

AND I THINK BASED ON TODAY'S

DECISION, THAT WE'RE GOING TO

HEAR FROM THIS COURT ON IMMUNITY

RIGHT BEFORE AMERICA GOES INTO

THE JULY 4