U.S. Supreme Court
Mar. 7, 2024
Jack and the Easter Egg: Special Counsel Jack Smith was handed a gift from the US Supreme Court
Should the majority's holding in Trump v. Anderson prompt Special Counsel Jack Smith to file a superseding indictment against Trump, including charges of insurrection and rebellion, under 18 U.S.C. Section 2383? This would provide a statutory basis for disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Paul D. Scott
Scott with the Law Offices of Paul D. Scott, P.C., filed an amicus brief in Trump v. Anderson on behalf of former Congressman Pete McCloskey, Judge Quentin Kopp, and the San Francisco Taxpayer Association. Scott is also a former U.S. Department of Justice Trial and Appellate attorney. The opinions expressed herein are his own.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Anderson was widely expected – a unanimous reversal of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision disqualifying Trump from the Colorado ballot. All nine justices agreed that state officials are not authorized by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to disqualify candidates for federal office from the ballot. Most of the ensuing chatter, however, has been preoccupied with the notion that the conservative major...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In