What happens to a trials court decision when an appeal of that decision is reversed by the US Supreme Court?

[StephenS]

Jurisdiction

US Federal Law

Not quite sure which forum to ask this decision in so I will try here first (if it is the wrong forum please let me know).

What happens to the decision of a trials court when an appeal of that decision is reversed by the US Supreme Court?

Note that I am asking:

1) about CIVIL case decisions here, not criminal ones; and
2) about reversals where the appeal court decision is reversed but the Supreme Court does NOT specify what else is to happen, whether in terms of the appeal itself or the trials court's decision. That us to say, the court gives NO other instructions, whether in turns of remanding the case for further action by a lower court or specifically vacating the trials court's decision.
3) the lower court appeal I refer to might be in a federal circuit court or it might be in a state or territory supreme court. (BTW, if the venue DOES make a difference in terms of what i ask below please specify what that difference is.)

I should also point out that I do have an actual case in mind here but I would rather keep it hypothetical for the moment.

Now bearing those aforesaid conditions in mind, back to the actual question. what happens to the trials court decision if the Supreme Court reverses an appeal of that trials court decison in some lower court?

In particular:

A) what happens when the appeal which got reversed by the Supreme Court had itself reversed the trials court decision? In the absence of any more specific directions from the Supreme Court, does reversing the appeal REVIVE the trials court decision? (Remember, we are talking about a CIVIL decision here, not a criminal conviction or acquittal.)

B) Conversely, suppose the lower court appeal had AFFIRMED the trials court's decision. In the absence of any more specific directions from the Supreme Court, does reversing that appeal by the Supreme Court thereby VACATE the trials court decision?

C) Alternately, does a Supreme Court reversal of a (lower) appellate court's decision leave the trials court decision in whatever state the lower court appeal had left it in?

Which brings me to a further permutation: what happens if the lower court appeal which got reversed by the Supreme Court had both reversed AND affirmed the trials court decision? That is to say, the (lower) appellate court reversed PART of the trials court decision and affirmed the rest. Does the Supreme Court's reversal of the appeal automatically VACATE the entirety of the trials court decision or is the trials court decision left in that half-reversed/half-affirmed state?

Thanks in advance.

 

[adjusterjack]

This is as good a forum as any. We all read them all.

I, and probably others, eschew hypotheticals.

Name the case.

Otherwise, there are other sites like Reddit and City-Data where people love spending the day on hypothetical discussions.

 

[army judge]

What happens to the decision of a trials court when an appeal of that decision is reversed by the US Supreme Court?

Here you go, novice legal scholar.

There are dozens of similar links available to those seeking answers to a myriad of legal riddles.

The Appeals Process: From Trial Court to the Supreme Court - Cockle Legal Briefs

How does a case reach the Supreme Court? Well, it can be complicated. But most cases progress routinely down a well-blazed trail (or system of trails). Without a map, you can get lost — so let this blog serve that purpose as I guide you along the path to the Supreme Court. You Have to […]

www.cocklelegalbriefs.com

 

[zddoodah]

What happens to the decision of a trials court when an appeal of that decision is reversed by the US Supreme Court?

Well...almost never does that happen. If it's a state level trial court, a case must go through the state intermediate appellate court (unless it's one of the few states without an intermediate appellate court) and the state's highest court (state supreme court in most states) before it can get to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme court won't reverse the decision of the trial court. Rather, it will reverse the decision of the state supreme court (although, rarely, the state supreme court will decline to hear a case and the U.S. Supreme Court will hear it). In most cases in the federal system, trial court decisions are appealed to the circuit court of appeals before reaching the Supreme Court. The only cases I'm aware of in which the U.S. Supreme Court has reversed a trial court decision are those involving 3-judge federal district courts in civil rights cases, which are directly appealable to the Supreme Court.

As far as what happens to any given case after a reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court, the answer is that it depends on the relevant facts and circumstances. The case will be remanded to a lower court for further proceedings. There are dozens of possibilities as to what those further proceedings might be. Could be, eventually, a re-trial. Could be the entry of judgment in favor of the other party. Many other things are possible.

reversals where the appeal court decision is reversed but the Supreme Court does NOT specify what else is to happen, whether in terms of the appeal itself or the trials court's decision. That us to say, the court gives NO other instructions, whether in turns of remanding the case for further action by a lower court or specifically vacating the trials court's decision.

I'm not aware of any such case. Can you cite a case in which this occurred?

what happens when the appeal which got reversed by the Supreme Court had itself reversed the trials court decision?

If the trial court's judgment is reversed by a lower appellate court and the U.S. Supreme Court reverses the reversal, then at least the following things are possible: (1) the trial court's judgment will be reinstated; or (2) the lower appellate court will reconsider its decision in light of the Supreme Court's ruling.

suppose the lower court appeal had AFFIRMED the trials court's decision. In the absence of any more specific directions from the Supreme Court, does reversing that appeal by the Supreme Court thereby VACATE the trials court decision?

Similar to the above, the Supreme Court reversal of the lower court's affirmance could result in the case going back to the trial court for a new trial (or other appropriate proceedings) or it could result in reconsideration by the lower appellate court (or other possibilities).

Which brings me to a further permutation....

WAY too fact-specific.

 

[StephenS]

This is as good a forum as any. We all read them all.

I, and probably others, eschew hypotheticals.

Name the case.

Otherwise, there are other sites like Reddit and City-Data where people love spending the day on hypothetical discussions.

> I, and probably others, eschew hypotheticals.

My purpose was to find out what the legal rules the Supreme Court would apply to cover the situations I described, multiple searches of the Net (& pawing through assorted cases) having drawn a blank.

> Name the case.

Trump v. Anderson (2024)

 

[StephenS]

Well...almost never does that happen. If it's a state level trial court, a case must go through the state intermediate appellate court (unless it's one of the few states without an intermediate appellate court) and the state's highest court (state supreme court in most states) before it can get to the U.S. Supreme Court.

What about Colorado? The case I had in mind went from the state's district court in Denver directly to the state's Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme court won't reverse the decision of the trial court.

Even in cases where the Supreme Court itself in effect rules that the trials court should never have reached a decision at all?

Rather, it will reverse the decision of the state supreme court (although, rarely, the state supreme court will decline to hear a case and the U.S. Supreme Court will hear it). In most cases in the federal system, trial court decisions are appealed to the circuit court of appeals before reaching the Supreme Court. The only cases I'm aware of in which the U.S. Supreme Court has reversed a trial court decision are those involving 3-judge federal district courts in civil rights cases, which are directly appealable to the Supreme Court.

Given the case I have in mind and the underlying nature of the decision the Supreme Court made, simply reversing the decision of the state supreme court is (probably) not enough (again just MHO) given that that state supreme court explicitly affirmed PART of the trials court decision.

As far as what happens to any given case after a reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court, the answer is that it depends on the relevant facts and circumstances. The case will be remanded to a lower court for further proceedings. There are dozens of possibilities as to what those further proceedings might be. Could be, eventually, a re-trial. Could be the entry of judgment in favor of the other party. Many other things are possible.

In the case I have in mind, not only was there no remand, given the nature of the decision the Supreme Court reached remand would arguably have been impossible.

I'm not aware of any such case. Can you cite a case in which this occurred?

Trump v. Anderson (2024). The US Supreme Court explicitly reversed the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court in Anderson v, Griswold, but NOT the decision of the Denver district court which originally heard the case. (That original decision had been partly reversed by the Colorado Supreme Court but also partly affirmed.)

As far as I can make out, the US Supreme Court gave no directions as to what was supposed to happen to that original decision other than an implied one: namely, the states (and so by extension state courts) have no power over the kind of subject-matter the case in question dealt with. Yet it made no EXPLICIT rullng on that question as fa ras I can see.

If the trial court's judgment is reversed by a lower appellate court and the U.S. Supreme Court reverses the reversal, then at least the following things are possible: (1) the trial court's judgment will be reinstated; or (2) the lower appellate court will reconsider its decision in light of the Supreme Court's ruling.

But would the trial court's decison be AUTOMATICALLY reinstated in the absence of anything else from the US Supreme Court?

Similar to the above, the Supreme Court reversal of the lower court's affirmance could result in the case going back to the trial court for a new trial (or other appropriate proceedings) or it could result in reconsideration by the lower appellate court (or other possibilities).

As far as I can see it can't go back. Not given the Supreme Court's OWN (albeit implicit) ruling that state courts lack the power to deal with the kind of case in question. So what happens to the part of the district court's decision which the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed? Does the affirmed portion remain on the books as a live precedent? Or was it automatically annulled by the US Supreme Court's reversal?

WAY too fact-specific.

Perhaps, but such was what happened in Trump v. Anderson. Burt let me be more specific still. I'm not a lawyer, but when in that case the Supreme Court's chose to use the word "reverse" that was (just my own humble non-lawyerly opinion) arguably an error. They probably should have used the word "dismiss" instead.

Why?

Because by basing their argument against the Colorado Supreme Court's decision on the POWERS of state courts what they were in effect RULING on was that that Colorado Supreme Court was suffering from a want of jurisdiction. (Note that that is just my OWN assessment. The word "jurisdiction" nowhere appears anywhere in any of their judgments for that case,)

The wider issue is that the ruling in Trump v. Anderson was sufficiently broad that the Denver district court decision arguably suffered from the same problem. Yet no attempt was made to vacate ir.

Hence my specifics. Did the reversal of the Colorado Supreme Court's decision automatically vacate it entirely or did the US Supreme Court simply overlook what the state court did to it and it is still as the Colorado Supreme Court left it it: (partly) alive & well?

Alternately, did the reversal of the Colorado Supreme Court's decision reinstate the part if original district court decision the state supreme court had itself reversed?

 

[adjusterjack]

Here's a link to the US Supreme Court's decision.

Trump v. Anderson, 144 S. Ct. 662 - Supreme Court 2024 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

 

[zddoodah]

What about Colorado? The case I had in mind went from the state's district court in Denver directly to the state's Supreme Court.

I neither live nor practice in Colorado, but apparently Colorado appellate procedure rules allowed the Anderson case to bypass the intermediate appellate court.

Even in cases where the Supreme Court itself in effect rules that the trials court should never have reached a decision at all?

I'm unaware of any such case. As I mentioned previously, the U.S. Supreme Court reviews decisions of: (1) federal circuit courts of appeals; (2) 3-judge federal district courts in civil rights cases; and (3) decisions of states' highest courts (or, in cases where a state's highest court declines to review an intermediate appellate court's decision, a decision of an intermediate appellate court).

Trump v. Anderson (2024).

So...your real question is what happened after the U.S. Supreme Court's March 4, 2024 decision?

In that case, "[a] group of Colorado voters contend[ed] that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the [federal] Constitution prohibits former President Donald J. Trump . . . from becoming President again. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with that contention." In other words, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a decision based on federal constitutional grounds.

In the underlying action, the Colorado trial court ruled in Trump's favor. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed on federal constitutional grounds, and the U.S. Supreme Court rejected that reasoning. While the Supreme Court's opinion does not contain any specific direction, the case was remanded back to the Colorado Supreme Court. I have no idea what has happened in the case since then. Presumably, the Colorado Supreme Court either reinstated its ruling based on some other ground or affirmed the trial court's ruling.

But would the trial court's decison be AUTOMATICALLY reinstated in the absence of anything else from the US Supreme Court?

Automatically? No.

 

[StephenS]

So...your real question is what happened after the U.S. Supreme Court's March 4, 2024 decision?

Not quite. I was looking to find out what legal RULES and PRECEDENTS would govern such situations (& thus the fate of the Denver district court's decision) IN THE ABSENCE of explicit Supreme Court directions.

Based on the answers thus far the impression I am getting is that there would appear to be none at all.

In that case, "[a] group of Colorado voters contend[ed] that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the [federal] Constitution prohibits former President Donald J. Trump . . . from becoming President again. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with that contention." In other words, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a decision based on federal constitutional grounds.

Not quite.

1) The entire case in BOTH courts was (largely) based on federal constitutional grounds. (Which may have been why at one point in the trial court peroceedings Trump tried to have the case moved to a federal district court, but that failed for echnical reasons, It then went back to the state court.)

2) The Colorado Supreme Court explicitly rejected the basis for the trial court's decison (namely, that the president is NOT an "officer of the United States" and so is not subject to Section 3). They then basically crafted a decision which agreed with the petitioner's claims.

In the underlying action, the Colorado trial court ruled in Trump's favor. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed on federal constitutional grounds, and the U.S. Supreme Court rejected that reasoning.

That statement is incorrect. Nowhere that I can find in Trump v. Anderson did the US Supreme Court reject the Colorado Supreme Court's REASONING. In fact that reasoning (as far as I can tell) is not even discussed. (If you can find where that discussion takes place in Trump v. Anderson please do point me to it.)

But then the trials court decision was not discussed either.

To be sure, in Trump v. Anderson the HISTORY of Anderson v. Grisworld in both courts was recounted, but the bulk of the ruling majority's decision was expended on justifying why the states CAN enforce Section 3 against STATE officers and candidates but NOT against federal officers and candidates. It then used THAT argument against the Colroado Supreme Court's decision.

Or to use the words of the US Supreme Court itself (p117 of their decision)

"For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal offceholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States. The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand."

Which brings us to this statement of yours...

While the Supreme Court's opinion does not contain any specific direction, the case was remanded back to the Colorado Supreme Court.

What is your source for that claim? I can find no info on that case being remanded back to the Colorado Supreme Court at all.

Why would it remand the case anyway when (according to the US Supreme Court) the states have no power to deal with such cases?

I have no idea what has happened in the case since then. Presumably, the Colorado Supreme Court either reinstated its ruling based on some other ground or affirmed the trial court's ruling.

That word "presumably" is doing a LOT of heavy lifting.

Wouldn't the Colorado Supreme Court doing ANYthing further with Anderson v. Griswold be in breach of the US Supreme Court's own ruling in Trump v. Anderson that the states have NO power to enforce Section 3 against federal officers & candidates?

 

[Tax Counsel]

Court. Jena Griswold is the Colorado Secretary of State, which is the office that determines who is eligible to appear as a candidate on ballots in the state. In that case Anderson and several other citizens filed suit against the Secretary to bar Trump's name from appearing on ballots in the state because he committed insurrection against the United States as result of his participation in the January 6, 2021 rally in DC that ended with a number of rally participants forcing their way in the U.S. Capitol Building in order to disrupt the counting of the electoral votes for President. Trump and the Colorado Republican State Central Committee (CRSCC) joined the case as an intervenors.

The District Court (which is the trial court of general jurisdiction in Colorado) never held a trial or issued any opinion or order on the issue of whether Trump's name may be on the ballot. Instead, the order that triggered the appeals was one in which the District Court judge denied three motions to dismiss that were filed by Trump and a motion to dismiss filed by the CRSCC.

Trump and the CRSCC made an interloctory appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court which the Court accepted because of the urgent timing involved in reaching a decision in time for ballots to be printed.

While the District Court did not take on the substantive legal issues, the Colorado Supreme Court did. It's ultimate decision was that Trump was barred from being on the Colorado ballot. I won't go through the reasoning of the Court here. You can read the Court's opinion here: Anderson v. Griswold, 543 P.3d 283 (2023).

Trump appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Neither the CRSCC nor the Secretary of State joined in the appeal, so Trump was substituted as the named party in the case in place of Griswold. That's why the U.S. Supreme Court case is known as Trump v. Anderson. The U.S. Supreme Court's ultimate holding in the case was that only Congress may deny a candidate from being placed on the ballot under the 14th Amendment's insurrection provision. Jack has already provided the link to that case.

The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court deprived the state courts of jurisdiction to consider the claim made by the plaintiffs in this case. The U.S. Supreme Court did not address the issues of Colorado law that were raised during the case so those decisions were unaffected. As the Colorado Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of state law and it had already rendered its decision on that, and the U.S. Supreme Court held the Colorado courts lacked jurisdiction to consider the U.S. constitutional issue, there was nothing left for the Colorado District Court to do after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision but dismiss the case it had. Case closed.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Nowhere that I can find in Trump v. Anderson did the US Supreme Court reject the Colorado Supreme Court's REASONING. In fact that reasoning (as far as I can tell) is not even discussed. (If you can find where that discussion takes place in Trump v. Anderson please do point me to it.)

Correct, the U.S. Supreme Court did not discuss the Colorado Supreme Court's reasoning on the 14th Amendment substantive issues (which were the only claims it could consider as the rest of the issues raised in the case were state law claims) because it didn't need to do so. It chose instead to handle the ultimate issue of whether the state could keep Trump's name off the ballot by analyzing the jurisdiction of the state court to hear the case, an issue that was never raised in the state court proceedings. By depriving the state courts of jurisdiction it rendered the state courts' opinions of the federal issues moot thus no remand was needed.

 

[StephenS]

The District Court (which is the trial court of general jurisdiction in Colorado) never held a trial or issued any opinion or order on the issue of whether Trump's name may be on the ballot.

Yes it did. It even gets a mention in the Colorado Supreme Court decision (p7 of tjhat decision):

"After permitting President Trump and the Colorado Republican StateCentral Committee ('CRSCC'; collectively, ;Intervenors') to intervene in theaction below, the district court conducted a five-day trial. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three."

Instead, the order that triggered the appeals was one in which the District Court judge denied three motions to dismiss that were filed by Trump and a motion to dismiss filed by the CRSCC.

You seem to be talking about some OTHER order of that court. I was referring to this one which was filed on November 17, 2023 at 4:50 pm. That was the one in which the court decided (p101, para 315): "As a result, the Court holds that Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to Trump." Then on p102 it went on (their caps): "Pursuant to the above, the Court ORDERS the Secretary of State to place Donald J. Trump on the presidential primary ballot when it certifies the ballot on January 5, 2024."

Or perhaps you prefer the US Supreme Court's recounting (p107 of their decision)

"After a fve-day trial, the state District Court found that former President Trump had 'engaged in insurrection' within the meaning of Section 3, but nonetheless denied the respondents' petition. The court held that Section 3 did not apply because the Presidency, which Section 3 does not mention by name, is not an 'offce . . . under the United States' and the President is not an 'offcer of the United States' within the meaning of that provision."

I would also point out that that district court decision was over a hundred pages in length and looked to me to be dealing in some detail with "the substantive legal issues".

When was the order you were alluding to filed? How many pages did it contain?

Trump and the CRSCC made an interloctory appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court which the Court accepted because of the urgent timing involved in reaching a decision in time for ballots to be printed.

While the District Court did not take on the substantive legal issues, the Colorado Supreme Court did. It's ultimate decision was that Trump was barred from being on the Colorado ballot. I won't go through the reasoning of the Court here. You can read the Court's opinion here: Anderson v. Griswold, 543 P.3d 283 (2023).

Thanks for the link, but I prefer the PDF versions (found here and here).

Trump appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Neither the CRSCC nor the Secretary of State joined in the appeal, so Trump was substituted as the named party in the case in place of Griswold. That's why the U.S. Supreme Court case is known as Trump v. Anderson.

Thanks for the insight.

Anderson. The U.S. Supreme Court's ultimate holding in the case was that only Congress may deny a candidate from being placed on the ballot under the 14th Amendment's insurrection provision. Jack has already provided the link to that case.

With all due respect but that iS NOT what they decided. That is your INTERPRETATION of what they decided. They themselves ruled (p106): "Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal offceholders and candidates, we reverse."

Nowhere that I can find do they CLAIM that "only Congress may deny a candidate from being placed on the ballot under the 14th Amendment's insurrection provision."

Their claim is based on an interpretation of section 7 of the 14th Amendment (hence their used of that word ":enforcing:" in the quote given above).

The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court deprived the state courts of jurisdiction to consider the claim made by the plaintiffs in this case.

I know--yet it is not at all clear that they themselves realised that. (Eg: the word "jurisdiction" nowhere appears anywhere in their decision.)

And that (just MHO) is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The situation their judgment has produced is WAY more complicated than just that aspect.

claim made by the plaintiffs in this case. The U.S. Supreme Court did not address the issues of Colorado law that were raised during the case so those decisions were unaffected. As the Colorado Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of state law and it had already rendered its decision on that, and the U.S. Supreme Court held the Colorado courts lacked jurisdiction to consider the U.S. constitutional issue, there was nothing left for the Colorado District Court to do after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision but dismiss the case it had. Case closed.

"Case closed"?

Not quite (again just MHO). I have been looking into that decision since it came out and at the risk of repeating myself, the situation that case has produced is WAY more complicated than you have described.

 

[StephenS]

The District Court (which is the trial court of general jurisdiction in Colorado) never held a trial or issued any opinion or order on the issue of whether Trump's name may be on the ballot.

Yes it did. It even gets a mention in the Colorado Supreme Court decision (p7 of tjhat decision):

"After permitting President Trump and the Colorado Republican StateCentral Committee ('CRSCC'; collectively, ;Intervenors') to intervene in theaction below, the district court conducted a five-day trial. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three."

Instead, the order that triggered the appeals was one in which the District Court judge denied three motions to dismiss that were filed by Trump and a motion to dismiss filed by the CRSCC.

You seem to be talking about some OTHER order of that court. I was referring to this one which was filed on November 17, 2023 at 4:50 pm. That was the one in which the court decided (p101, para 315): "As a result, the Court holds that Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to Trump." Then on p102 it went on (their caps): "Pursuant to the above, the Court ORDERS the Secretary of State to place Donald J. Trump on the presidential primary ballot when it certifies the ballot on January 5, 2024."

Or perhaps you prefer the US Supreme Court's recounting (p107 of their decision)

"After a fve-day trial, the state District Court found that former President Trump had 'engaged in insurrection' within the meaning of Section 3, but nonetheless denied the respondents' petition. The court held that Section 3 did not apply because the Presidency, which Section 3 does not mention by name, is not an 'offce . . . under the United States' and the President is not an 'offcer of the United States' within the meaning of that provision."

I would also point out that that district court decision was over a hundred pages in length and looked to me to be dealing in some detail with "the substantive legal issues".

When was the order you were alluding to filed? How many pages did it contain?

Trump and the CRSCC made an interloctory appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court which the Court accepted because of the urgent timing involved in reaching a decision in time for ballots to be printed.

While the District Court did not take on the substantive legal issues, the Colorado Supreme Court did. It's ultimate decision was that Trump was barred from being on the Colorado ballot. I won't go through the reasoning of the Court here. You can read the Court's opinion here: Anderson v. Griswold, 543 P.3d 283 (2023).

Thanks for the link, but I prefer the PDF versions (found here and here).

Trump appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Neither the CRSCC nor the Secretary of State joined in the appeal, so Trump was substituted as the named party in the case in place of Griswold. That's why the U.S. Supreme Court case is known as Trump v. Anderson.

Thanks for the insight.

Anderson. The U.S. Supreme Court's ultimate holding in the case was that only Congress may deny a candidate from being placed on the ballot under the 14th Amendment's insurrection provision. Jack has already provided the link to that case.

With all due respect but that iS NOT what they decided. That is your INTERPRETATION of what they decided. They themselves ruled (p106): "Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal offceholders and candidates, we reverse."

Nowhere that I can find do they CLAIM that "only Congress may deny a candidate from being placed on the ballot under the 14th Amendment's insurrection provision."

Their claim is based on an interpretation of section 7 of the 14th Amendment (hence their used of that word ":enforcing:" in the quote given above).

The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court deprived the state courts of jurisdiction to consider the claim made by the plaintiffs in this case.

I know--yet it is not at all clear that they themselves realised that. (Eg: the word "jurisdiction" nowhere appears anywhere in their decision.)

And that (just MHO) is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The situation their judgment has produced is WAY more complicated than just that aspect.

claim made by the plaintiffs in this case. The U.S. Supreme Court did not address the issues of Colorado law that were raised during the case so those decisions were unaffected. As the Colorado Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of state law and it had already rendered its decision on that, and the U.S. Supreme Court held the Colorado courts lacked jurisdiction to consider the U.S. constitutional issue, there was nothing left for the Colorado District Court to do after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision but dismiss the case it had. Case closed.

"Case closed"?

Not quite (again just MHO). I have been looking into that decision since it came out and at the risk of repeating myself, the situation that case has produced is WAY more complicated than you have described.

 

[StephenS]

It chose instead to handle the ultimate issue of whether the state could keep Trump's name off the ballot by analyzing the jurisdiction of the state court to hear the case, an issue that was never raised in the state court proceedings.

Your claim that the US Supreme Court "analyz[ed] the jurisdiction of the state court" is debatable, if only because:

1) The word "jurisdiction" is nowhere used in Trump v. Anderson; and
2) Nowhere did the Supreme Court state that the Anderson v. Griswold case in the Colorado Supreme Court was suffering from a "want of jurisdiction"; and
3) As far as I can establish the Supreme Court NEVER uses the word "reverse" to put an end to a court case suffering from a want of jurisdiction. It ALWAYS uses the word "dismiss". For example, Ex parte McCardle (1869), Flynt v. Ohio (1981), Florida v. Thomas (2001). (If there are exceptions please let me know.)

Which necessarily begs a question: did the US Supreme Court even realise it was dealing with a jurisdiction issue in Trump v. Anderson?

By depriving the state courts of jurisdiction it rendered the state courts' opinions of the federal issues moot thus no remand was needed.

Are you suggesting that a want of jurisdiction renders an appellate decision "moot"?

 

[Tax Counsel]

Which necessarily begs a question: did the US Supreme Court even realise it was dealing with a jurisdiction issue in Trump v. Anderson?

The decision of the Supreme Court does not have to use the word "jurisdiction" for the case decision to clearly reflect that. That's the situation with this opinion.

Are you suggesting that a want of jurisdiction renders an appellate decision "moot"?

No. It renders the other issues that the court was going to consider moot. Once the court lacked the power to decide the ultimate issue in the case — whether Trump's name could be on the ballot — it rendered any other pending motions/matters in the trial court moot because deciding those would not affect the case outcome.

 

[Tax Counsel]

With all due respect but that iS NOT what they decided. That is your INTERPRETATION of what they decided.

It is frequently the case in court opinions that the holding of the case is found in the body of the opinion, rather than in the final sentence in which (in this case) the order to reverse the lower court is stated. That's why lawyers scruntize the entire case looking for what the court held, and that's what they quote in subsequent cases. Analyzing most any case involves at least some degree of interpretation. That's part of what clients pay for when they seek legal advice from an attorney.

And that (just MHO) is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The situation their judgment has produced is WAY more complicated than just that aspect.

That may be the situation for future cases. We may never know because a ballot challenge based on the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause is unlikely to arise again any time soon, if ever. How the Court's reasoning may be applied to other types of cases is impossible to predict. It may be that few if any cases that arise in the future will present an issue in which this Supreme Court opinion would be relevant/useful. No way to know until we see how the future unfolds.

But insofar as the instant Colorado case is concerned, the situation is not very complex. The issue that the District Court had to decide was whether the plaintiff's claims that Trump should not appear on the ballot were correct. Once the Supreme Court determined the Colorado courts may not decide that issue, that particular case is effectively over and all there really is left to do for the Disctrict as a practical matter is take the steps needed to close the case and remove it from its docket. There are several procedural steps to that, but as they are merely perfunctory I just gave the bottom line: Case closed. Indeed, that's just what the District Court did on 3/8/2024, filed an order closing the case, with the result that the case status reflected on the Denver District Court records is simply "Closed".

 

[army judge]

Here is a good answer to your question, provided by the ABA

@StephenS

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/appeals/

 

[StephenS]

Here is a good answer to your question, provided by the ABA

@StephenS

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/appeals/

Thanks very much for the link, but it still does not seem to deal with the specific situations I described in my original post. My purpose in posing those was to attempt to ascertain what legal rules & precedents applied (or might apply) to those situations, but so far I am not having much luck.

What I probably need access to is some sort of federal judge's handbook of legal procedure. Are such things available online?

 

[army judge]

What I probably need access to is some sort of federal judge's handbook of legal procedure.

If the ABA guideline doesn't help you and you care so deeply about the decision, visit a nearby law school legal clinic or a legal aid society office.

You'll meet many people of a kindred spirit, eager to chat, debate, teach, and preach until you're completely immersed in the subject about which you care so deeply.

 

[StephenS]

Analyzing most any case involves at least some degree of interpretation. That's part of what clients pay for when they seek legal advice from an attorney.

Point taken.

That said, I think your interpretation is mistaken, if only because of the argument the Supreme Court appears to be pursuing in that case (although I will grant you that you proposal would NOT be impossible. Merely unlikely since it would appear (just MHO) to breach the separation of powers doctrine for Congress (to be fair, Congress did actually once pass a statute--or rather a series of statutes--which did what you described--"deny a candidate from being placed on the ballot under the 14th Amendment's insurrection provision"--and more, but the constitutionality of at least some of that series was arguably dubious; more to the point here I doubt if those statutes were what the Supreme Court had in mind in Trump v. Anderson; indeed, I more than half-suspect the Court did nor even consider those four when it wrote its judgment).

That may be the situation for future cases. We may never know because a ballot challenge based on the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause is unlikely to arise again any time soon, if ever.

True. But then I half-suspect that that was the ruling majority's purpose in crafting the decision that they did.

But insofar as the instant Colorado case is concerned, the situation is not very complex. The issue that the District Court had to decide was whether the plaintiff's claims that Trump should not appear on the ballot were correct. Once the Supreme Court determined the Colorado courts may not decide that issue, that particular case is effectively over and all there really is left to do for the Disctrict as a practical matter is take the steps needed to close the case and remove it from its docket.

WHY would they need to do that (& on what legal basis would they do so) when there was NO direction (let alone a formal order) from the Supreme Court commanding them to do so?

the case and remove it from its docket. There are several procedural steps to that, but as they are merely perfunctory I just gave the bottom line: Case closed. Indeed, that's just what the District Court did on 3/8/2024, filed an order closing the case, with the result that the case status reflected on the Denver District Court records is simply "Closed".

I cannot find that order online, not even on courtlistener.com. Do you have a link to it?