Monday's Supreme Court decision had impacts beyond the race for the White House. One key example: Central Pennsylvania voters will most likely see Scott Perry on their ballots this November.

The ruling that individual states can’t disqualify former President Donald Trump from the ballot extends to other federal offices, too. And that should clear Perry, a Pennsylvania Republican, of litigation attempting to have him thrown off the ballot for his role in trying to overturn the 2020 election.

“There’s no basis on which that suit can survive in light of this opinion,” Joshua Voss, Perry’s lead lawyer in the case, said after the Supreme Court ruling. “This should be the final word.”

Monday’s ruling effectively ended efforts that bubbled up in dozens of states to have Trump disqualified from the presidency for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol. Those efforts relied on an interpretation of the “insurrection clause” of the 14th Amendment that says people who engaged in insurrection after taking an oath to support the Constitution are barred from future office......

Perry hasn’t been charged with any crime regarding the Jan. 6 attack or other 2020 efforts, and Voss welcomed Monday’s ruling as clearing the path for Perry to be on the ballot as he runs for reelection.

“We are hopeful that it’ll be withdrawn soon,” he said of the lawsuit. “And if not, we will certainly move to make that happen.”

The Supreme Court on Monday temporarily blocked a new Texas immigration law in response to a Biden administration request.

In an order issued by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, the court froze a lower court decision that would have allowed the law to go into effect on Sunday.

The ruling is now blocked until March 13, giving all nine justices more time to determine what next steps to take.

Alito also ordered Texas to respond to the Biden administration request by March 11.

The law in question, known as SB4, allows police to arrest migrants who illegally cross the border from Mexico and imposes criminal penalties.

The dispute is the latest clash between the Biden administration and Texas over immigration enforcement on the U.S.-Mexico border.

A federal judge blocked the law after the Biden administration sued, but the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit in a brief order said it could go into effect on March 10 if the Supreme Court declines to intervene.

The Supreme Court on Monday temporarily blocked a new Texas immigration law in response to a Biden administration request.

In an order issued by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, the court froze a lower court decision that would have allowed the law to go into effect on Sunday.

The ruling is now blocked until March 13, giving all nine justices more time to determine what next steps to take.

Alito also ordered Texas to respond to the Biden administration request by March 11.

The law in question, known as SB4, allows police to arrest migrants who illegally cross the border from Mexico and imposes criminal penalties.

The dispute is the latest clash between the Biden administration and Texas over immigration enforcement on the U.S.-Mexico border.

A federal judge blocked the law after the Biden administration sued, but the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit in a brief order said it could go into effect on March 10 if the Supreme Court declines to intervene.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has indicated it will issue rulings on Monday, one of which could be the highly anticipated decision on whether Colorado can kick former President Donald Trump off the primary ballot.

The court noted on its website on Sunday afternoon that rulings are expected.

Trump is currently set to appear on the state primary ballot on Tuesday after a hold was placed on the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that deemed him ineligible due to his efforts to defy the 2020 election results.

The U.S. Supreme Court held oral arguments on Feb. 8 on whether Trump can be barred from the ballot because of his role leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Section 3 of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment says people are not eligible to serve in government if they “engaged in insurrection.” It appeared from the oral argument that Trump would win the case.

Now that the Supreme Court will review the D.C. Circuit’s decision that Trump has no immunity from prosecution in the federal election interference case, there are questions about which of the other three criminal cases could be affected.

Through a filing last week, Trump has already moved to dismiss the classified documents case on immunity grounds. Trump also moved to dismiss the RICO case in Fulton County, Georgia, on presidential immunity grounds in early January.

But Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s hush money case is different, in part because it arose before Trump’s legal team was thinking about his legal problems holistically.

Specifically, when Trump was first indicted in that case, he moved to remove the matter to Manhattan federal district court (i.e., the Southern District of New York), arguing that as a federal officer, he was entitled to a federal forum. Trump also argued that his defense would turn on one or more questions of federal, rather than state, law, as required by the removal statute and precedent. In his brief, Trump said he intended to defend himself by arguing: 1) that any prosecution of him premised on an underlying violation of federal campaign finance law was preempted by the pertinent federal statute; and 2) more significantly, that he was immune from prosecution as a matter of federal constitutional law.

In a scathing and thorough opinion last fall, Judge Alvin Hellerstein rejected Trump’s removal motion, finding that not only was Trump a former federal officer ineligible for removal, but that even if he were eligible, the federal legal defenses he intended to raise were not even colorable.

Specifically, Hellerstein rejected Trump’s argument that he was immune from Bragg’s prosecution because “his conduct ‘was taken solely because he was President of the United States’ and, ‘as such, his decision to retain Michael Cohen to act as his personal lawyer arose out of his duties as President.’” Hellerstein explained:

Trump’s argument is conclusory. No evidence was presented to support it, and Trump has not explained how hiring and making payments to a personal attorney to handle personal affairs carries out a constitutional duty. Reimbursing Cohen for advancing hush money to Stephanie Clifford cannot be considered the performance of a constitutional duty. Falsifying business records to hide such reimbursement, and to transform the reimbursement into a business expense for Trump and income to Cohen, likewise does not relate to a presidential duty. Trump is not immune from the People’s prosecution in New York Supreme Court. His argument of immunity is not a colorable defense.

Trump initially appealed Hellerstein’s decision, but he withdrew that appeal in mid-November. Why? We don’t know for sure — but one likely reason is that his removal argument undermines, if not contradicts, one of his main defenses in the various ballot qualification battles. Trump could not continue to argue he was a federal officer for purposes of removal without appearing to concede as much in, say, the Colorado case, in which Trump argued that the president is not an officer of the United States. Perhaps not coincidentally, Trump withdrew his removal appeal just two days before the Colorado trial court ruled on Trump’s ballot eligibility following a weeklong trial. And that court found that although Trump had participated in an insurrection, he could not be removed from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment because, among other reasons, he was not an “officer of the United States.”

Six months ago, the likely GOP nominee said he’d somehow figure out a way to make “both sides“ happy with a compromise solution, though no one had any idea what that might entail. In his latest interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, however, Trump went noticeably further about his intentions. The Hill reported:

Former President Trump on Thursday said he hasn’t decided on a set number of weeks after which abortion should be banned after it was reported he privately has indicated he likes the idea of a 16-week ban. “More and more I’m hearing about 15 weeks. I haven’t decided yet,” Trump told Fox News host Sean Hannity.

The phrasing could’ve been more clarifying, but the exchange nevertheless offered fresh insights into the Republican’s perspective.......

It might be tempting to think Trump largely dodged the issue again, but that’s not quite right. The former president hedged, not on whether to impose a national abortion ban, but on the specific details on the kind of national abortion ban he’s prepared to embrace.

In context, when the likely Republican nominee said, “I haven’t decided yet,” he was suggesting that the debate is over where to draw the line, not whether to draw the line.

Despite the murky phrasing, for those concerned about the future of reproductive rights, the message is plenty clear: If given the opportunity, Trump is putting a national abortion ban on the table.

In other words, it’s Republicans who control the chamber, and it was Republican leaders who agreed to the terms to avoid the shutdown they threatened, but it was members of the Democratic minority that provided nearly two-thirds of the votes needed to pass the bill.

This legislative dynamic — Republicans relying on Democrats to govern — happens a lot more than GOP leaders like to admit.

About a month ago, for example, the House considered a bipartisan compromise on tax policy, which was endorsed by the House Republican leadership. It was nevertheless Democrats who provided most of the votes to pass it.

Two weeks earlier, a bill to prevent a partial government shutdown cleared the House with 314 votes, but roughly two-thirds of those votes came from the House Democratic minority.....

When John Boehner was a Republican House speaker, he too found himself dependent on Democrats when his far-right members didn’t want to govern. During Paul Ryan’s tenure, it happened some more. When Kevin McCarthy did the same thing, it contributed to the intraparty revolt that cost him his gavel.

And now, here we are, watching Speaker Johnson do the same thing.