top of page

US Court of Appeals for DC Circuit Agrees to Review Alter v Trump


Opening Brief 24-5132

US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has agreed to review Alter v Trump

In an appeal brief, I dispute the basis of the dismissal order, which was based on Trump v Anderson. This case was filed in federal court before Trump v Anderson was decided, and I point out in the appeal that the ruling in Trump v Anderson does not actually bind Article III lower courts from issuing an opinion because they reserve their right to opine in the end. So, Article III subject matter jurisdiction either exists or it doesn't; it's not just for the Supreme Court.

It's a bit dry if you're unfamiliar with the case, but the long and the short is I am asking them to reach the merits (which the Supreme Court did not do) and declare that Trump did, in fact, clearly violate 14sec3, which itself would disqualify him from holding the office again and would substantively answer the questions that everybody wants answered.

If if prevails in the appeal and it doesn't get certiorari from the Supreme Court, then the declaration would stand. If it does, I would argue that they need to revisit that portion of their opinion since this case would come to them from the federal court instead of the state and is, therefore, a different case. It's different in some other important ways, too; it doesn't seek to order him off the ballot, so there is no interaction with federal/state jurisdiction.

It simply asks for the establishment of a factual declaration. Which I think we all need.

And if you follow the plain language of Article III, it would disqualify him (not from running, but from holding or being sworn in)

Yes, that sounds like a mess, but the Supreme Court should have done this in February. When they took the case cert, they said they were going to reach the merits, but they never did. It's their mess, not mine.

I thoroughly debunk their Griffins Case citation anyway, so the argument can be carried over to any Scotus review. (you can't present new arguments in an appeal, so I had them in the record on the circuit court case and carried them through here)

Worth mentioning, in Sotomayor's opinion (with Kagan, and Brown), she (they) actually accuses the majority under oath of violating the scope of the case in their opinion to protect Trump and themselves, which is kind of several crimes and itself a 14sec3 violation; why hasn't the DOJ looked into that? Why hasn't that portion of the opinion been reported more? You would think a SCOTUS judge, much less 3 of them, implicating several crimes under oath would get some action from the DOJ. But nope.

In any case, this is a civil case, and I am a civilian, so I can't prosecute a crime, but I can get the court to declare the violation.

1 commento

Valutazione 0 stelle su 5.
Non ci sono ancora valutazioni

Aggiungi una valutazione
19 mag
Valutazione 5 stelle su 5.


Mi piace
bottom of page