Derek Muller, a law professor at Notre Dame University, said “it appears no,” noting that the liberals complained that almost all ruling forecloses another ways for Congress to implement the provision. Rick Hasen, a law professor on the University of California-Los Angeles, wrote that it’s frustratingly unclear what the bounds may be on Congress. It’s unclear whether the ruling leaves open the likelihood Law News that Congress could refuse to certify the election of Trump or another presidential candidate it sees as having violated Section 3. The justices sidestepped the politically fraught problem of revolt in their opinions Monday. The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously restored Donald Trump to 2024 presidential main ballots, rejecting state makes an attempt to ban the Republican former president over the Capitol riot.
- The justices ruled a day before the Super Tuesday primaries that states can not invoke a post-Civil War constitutional provision to keep presidential candidates from appearing on ballots.
- The court stated that it was persuaded, primarily based on the documentary evidence and oral testament introduced in court docket, that the sums of cash were given to the temple as loans, quite than as items or donations.
- Her signature — no much less than for now — caps weeks of national blowback prompted by the state court’s decision that embryos created by way of in vitro fertilization are considered youngsters.
- High-quality, practical print publications and eBooks from Law Society Publishing to help your professional apply.