The Supreme Court delivered DONALD TRUMP a critical win this morning, ruling in a unanimous decision that states have no grounds to remove him from the ballot for the 2024 election. While the ruling was widely expected, it firmly clears up a point of contention for Trump as he mounts a comeback attempt and barrels toward a reelection matchup with President JOE BIDEN. The lede-all from Zach Montellaro, Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney FROM THE UNANIMOUS RULING: “An evolving electoral map could dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties, and States across the country, in different ways and at different times. The disruption would be all the more acute — and could nullify the votes of millions and change the election result — if Section 3 enforcement were attempted after the Nation has voted. Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos — arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration. “For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States. The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand. All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.” Read the full SCOTUS decision LIBERALS ISSUE FIERY OPINION … In a six-page opinion, Justices SONIA SOTOMAYOR, ELENA KAGAN and KETANJI BROWN JACKSON said that while they agreed with the end result of the decision, they would have arrived at a narrower ruling that left the door open for the possibility of federal courts disqualifying Trump or another candidate alleged to have engaged in insurrection. Their concurrence begins sharply with a line from the court’s Dobbs decision: “‘If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more.‘ … That fundamental principle of judicial restraint is practically as old as our Republic. … Today, the Court departs from that vital principle, deciding not just this case, but challenges that might arise in the future.” They go on to add that the main opinion “reaches out to decide Section 3 questions not before us, and to foreclose future efforts to disqualify a Presidential candidate under that provision. In a sensitive case crying out for judicial restraint, it abandons that course.” In closing, they quote a line from former Justice STEPHEN BREYER’s dissent in Bush v. Gore: “What it does today, the Court should have left undone.” … PROMPTING THIS RESPONSE: Justice AMY CONEY BARRETT penned her own one-page opinion, essentially agreeing with the liberals while (gently) chiding them for their tone. “The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up,” Barrett wrote. “For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.” The short and sweet Trump reaction: “BIG WIN FOR AMERICA!!!” he posted on Truth Social. In remarks at Mar-a-Lago shortly after noon, Trump previewed the next big fight the Supreme Court is expected to decide: “Another thing that will be coming up very soon will be immunity for a president. And not immunity for me, but for any president” he said. “If a president doesn't have full immunity, you really don’t have a president, because nobody that is serving in that office will have the courage to make, in many cases, what would be the right decision — or it could be the wrong decision. … They have to make them free of all terror that can be rained upon them when they leave office or even before they leave office.” Watch the clip The Hill reaction: “Congressional GOP takes victory lap after Supreme Court rules states can't remove Trump from ballot,” by Anthony Adragna ELSEWHERE IN THE COURTS — ALLEN WEISSELBERG, the former CFO of the Trump Organization, reached an agreement with Manhattan prosecutors today to plead guilty to perjury charges, NYT’s Ben Protess, William Rashbaum, Jesse McKinley and Kate Christobek report. “Yet Mr. Weisselberg, who for years has remained steadfastly loyal to Mr. Trump in the face of intense prosecutorial pressure, did not implicate his former boss. … Mr. Weisselberg, who was led into the courtroom in handcuffs wearing a blue surgical mask and a dark suit, conceded that in recent years he had lied under oath to the New York attorney general’s office when it was investigating Mr. Trump for fraud.” Not-so new territory: “In 2022, he pleaded guilty in a tax fraud case. Although he did not implicate Mr. Trump, he agreed to testify against the former president’s company, the Trump Organization, at its trial on the same charges. In that case, the company was convicted, and Mr. Weisselberg received a five-month sentence. With good behavior, he served nearly 100 days behind bars at the notorious Rikers Island jail complex.” Good Monday afternoon. Thanks for reading Playbook PM. Drop me a line at gross@politico.com.
|