BREAKING: Supreme Court Receives Trump 2024 Ballot Ban Appeal

We have breaking news.

Supreme Court receives President Trump's 2024 Ballot Ban Appeal. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now, more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you.

Share and post your comments. Recall 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jay Sekulow. Hey, everybody.

Welcome to the broadcast. And we've got news that's not unexpected here. President Trump yesterday afternoon filed his petition for certiorari, that is petition for review, with the Supreme Court of the United States on the issue of what happened in Colorado.

So we represent the Colorado GOP. Dave Warrington and his law firm represents the Trump campaign. Both of those are up right now. There's going to be one more additional filing that we've got to do today. And then the case is going to be distributed. It may go to conference tomorrow.

That's going to be totally up to the court. They do have a conference tomorrow. So, Logan, it could well be at that conference, but people probably don't even know what a conference is. Yeah, I think there's a lot of confusion even about what's happening.

As I said it, I realize that. Yeah, what does it mean? Yeah, so a conference is where they actually decide if they're going to hear the case. And they go around in the order of the youngest member of the court, as far as not age, but tenure on the court, goes first saying, I want to hear it, I don't want to hear it, and they talk about it. So that's where they decide or can decide whether they want to hear the case. I think the case will be – well, I know it will be available for conference. Whether they reach it at conference is totally up to the chief justice of the Supreme Court based on the load that they have. My guess is it does go because I think this thing needs to be handled in an expeditious manner.

I think you're right, Jay. I think that, of course, the clerk is going to submit the case to the court. The decision whether to take it up at conference is that of the court, but I think that given the nationwide impact of this case, the national interest in this case, the significance of the case in terms of whether somebody is on a ballot or not on a ballot, militates in favor of the court actually taking this up at conference and making a substantive decision whether to hear it or not. When we say substantive decision, what we're not talking about is the outcome of the case. It's just whether to take it. Whether to take it, and then, Logan, they will set forth a series of procedures, which I can get into in the next segment. It will take a while to explain that, but I think it's important for everybody.

Look, this is the most important Supreme Court case on election law ever. So even though it's moving quickly, it has to move orderly, if that makes sense. And conceptually, the idea is this will move very fast, hopefully. Yes, can't guarantee it, but the way it's been handled so far, this is my sense, is it's possible we actually get an order tomorrow. I mean, we could get an order from the court tomorrow on the status of this. Now, that order may say we want additional briefing. It may say, you know, you got 10 days to do this brief, opening brief this day, here set for Supreme Court oral argument date. So it can be pretty wide open, but I do think it's fair to say that we are going to get some substantive response if they decide to take it up in conference.

I guess that's the word I need to emphasize to people. What we don't – it may go to conference, doesn't mean they take it up, because they have a whole list of cases and they've got a backlog docket. Now, this is a very important case that's creating election havoc already. I think the court knows they have to jump in. We're doing everything we can to have it ready for that. We've got to file one more document this afternoon. So for our team that's listening, and especially with our emails going out, we are filing an additional document this afternoon with the court.

So that is happening literally as we speak. That's right, and phone lines are open for you. We'd love to hear from you, 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. We have a packed show today. We're also going to be having a lot of special guests.

We're going to break everything down from you. 1-800-684-3110, once again, to have your voice heard on the air. I'd love to hear from you today. As we continue this first week of the year, a lot of things are on a lot of people's minds.

So whether it is this specific topic or any others, happy to try to get as many as we can. So stay on hold if you're on hold. If not, call us, 1-800-684-30. We also made our Supreme Court Victory Fund up. And with just hours to go, we filed a major brief at the U.S. Supreme Court in the last two days. We are filing another document today.

Your support's critical. We've got your tax deductible gifts will be doubled. And this is just for our Supreme Court Victory Fund. You go to ACLJ.org. And if you can become an ACLJ champion, we're at the cusp of getting to 19,000.

We're about 100 shy. If you could donate monthly, whatever the amount is, you become an ACLJ champion. And by the way, you help with these matching campaigns when you do it.

It really does make a difference. ACLJ.org, we encourage you to do that. And, of course, our Supreme Court Victory Fund, ACLJ.org.

Welcome back to the broadcast, everyone. We are taking your calls at 800-684-3110. Professor Harry Hutchinson's joined us, our director of policy. Harry, you know, we've got to file one more document, which we're doing this afternoon. And that will have the case ready for at least for the conference. Now, of course, as I said earlier, we'll go through what happens at the conference. But that's really up to the court at this point. But the clamor in the media, and it's totally understandable, and I think the body politic as well, is this case needs to be resolved.

Because chaos is already ensuing. You've got Maine saying they're off. You've got, you know, you've got Colorado saying he's off. You've got the other states saying he's on.

You've got 14 other cases pending. There is a chaos factor in this, which mitigates towards the court taking expedited review, in my opinion. I think you're precisely correct. But it's also important to keep in mind that globalists love chaos.

Why? Because they see themselves as superior people who can manage chaos better. So they would prefer chaos to the election of Donald Trump.

So to some extent, the globalists and the elites, they have masterminded this particular process. This attempt to disqualify Donald Trump has been in the works for at least two years. And as Professor Richard Epstein, a law professor at NYU, points out, it's important to keep in mind that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is inapplicable to Donald Trump.

Why? Because it covers four political actors, state senators, representatives, as well as electors for President and vice President. President Trump is not an officer within the meaning of Section 3.

That is crystal clear, despite the fog of the political wars that are ongoing. Yeah, but let me ask you this, Harry, because this is how it's coming up. I mean, we've got, we have the officers, we set up the case with the officer being the very first question. The President's not an officer under the Constitution. In fact, he's a branch of government under the Constitution. He appoints officers with the advice and consent of the United States Senate.

But I want to take it kind of to the next step on this, right? And the next step on this, in my view, is, is the court going to set this for full plenary review with oral argument and briefing on a regular scale? Or do they look at a reduced, condensed version of expeditious – everybody's filed motions to expedite, all sides. But, you know, the court can do whatever the court wants to do here.

Well, I think you're precisely correct. I certainly would lean to an expedited review. In part, we need to resolve these questions quickly. The ballots need to go out this month in many jurisdictions.

And it's also important to keep in mind that military officers are supposed to receive their ballots perhaps two or three weeks in advance. So there are huge practical problems associated with, let's say, a leisurely approach to this issue. This issue is the quintessential issue for a democracy, for a republic.

Without an expeditious review, this could amount to the denial of the democratic rights of American citizens to participate in a republican form of government. So I would urge the court to move quickly. I think, I think Harry's right. Now, the question here, and I think this is where we've got to really focus.

I want you to, I want our audience to understand this because you all obviously are into these issues and understand them. This is complicated. It's complicated because it's a multi-issue case. It's a case of first impression, meaning there's not clear precedent on one side or the other. It's statute, it's constitutional interpretation in part based on what the founders' thoughts were. So we go back, Andy, to the, your specialty, the history of all of this. And, okay, the ramifications of it are very serious.

Well, that is, Jay. Of course, the Supreme Court has always had a precedent, a principle by which it applies in deciding cases. And that is, if a case can be decided on non-constitutional grounds, we would opt to do that instead of deciding the constitutional question. So one of the easiest ways to approach this is to approach it on the question of whether the President of the United States is an officer under the Constitution, Section 3 Amendment 14 that Professor Hutchison alluded to, and whether Congress makes those decisions as to who is qualified or not, and not the individual states. And therefore, you don't have to get into the niceties of the constitutional issues in the case. The one thing I agree with Professor Hutchison with, and with you, is this is not a leisurely case.

No. This is a case of utmost national, indeed global, importance because of the United States' stature in the world, and the right of someone to vote for who they want to, regardless of anything else. There's also a legal issue, and this is something that's been raised in a number of briefs filed in our case.

And that is, a technically disqualified person can still run for President because that disqualification can be removed by the United States Congress by two-thirds vote. So that's almost before you get into any issue. So that's another one that—I mean, that's why I'm saying, it's going to move expeditiously, I believe, because everybody's saying it needs to move quickly. But Harry, it's very—this is complex constitutional law.

Let's not kid ourselves. I think that's correct. And in addition to the provision that you suggested, in other words, the ability of Congress to remove a disability, it's important to make another distinction, which is, Section 3, when it defines officers, was focused on a precise distinction between individuals who are elected to national office versus local office. And so if you focus correctly on the language of the Constitution, the disqualification was with respect to local office.

Why? Because Congress, when it enacted this constitutional provision, was concerned about local bias, which would then allow Confederate officers, who basically had taken up arms against the United States government, to basically be elected. With respect to the President, it's important to keep in mind, and the vice President, we're talking about a national office. And so, therefore, they're not subject to quote-unquote local bias. There is also an additional question, which is the insurrection question.

And it's important to ask this question. What is an insurrection that is taking up arms and waging war upon the United States? There is no evidence that on January the 6th, 2021, that anyone took up arms and waged war on the United States.

But no matter what happened on that day, and it was horrific, here's the issue. Two and a half years of prosecutors reviewing it, not one case, not just against Trump, but against the hundreds of other people they charged, not one case was raised charging insurrection. There's a federal statute on insurrection. I think it's 18 USC 2383. I may have the number wrong, but there was not one case on insurrection.

Zero. Absolutely, because what you had, at least initially on January the 6th, was a political protest, which turned violent. And so that is quite distinguishable from an insurrection. And if we are serious about prosecuting insurrections, we should first go to the individuals who participated in the burning of federal buildings in Portland, Oregon and elsewhere. That arguably constitutes even a more serious attempt to attack federal buildings. And I wouldn't say that's an insurrection either.

I would say that's, you know, damaging government property and it's a felony and you go to jail a long time, Andy. Yeah, I mean political, as Harry said, political protests that turn violent are one thing. We've had those in the American republic since the very beginning. Violent political protests.

But that doesn't mean that it elevates itself to an attempt to overthrow the republic and an insurrection. And that's the problem. Let's go ahead and take Don who's calling from California. Don, you're on the air.

Bless you for the work you do. I was so impressed by a statement you made the other day. You pointed out, I think it was based on an article from one of the posts, I don't know if it was New York or Washington, but about this group called CREW or the Initiative to Remove Mr. Trump's Name from the Ballot. And you mentioned three republicans that were supporting it and one was DeSantis, one was Christie. No, no, I never said that CREW and DeSantis supported CREW. They have not supported this taking off of the ballot, to be clear. There are republican electors in Colorado that supported CREW, but not the candidates, no.

Oh, okay, I just wanted to clarify that. Yeah, no, no, no. The candidates have been clear that they think this is wrong. I mean, Gavin Newsom has been clear saying this is wrong.

I mean, it's not even just a republican-democrat thing. Yeah, I mean, there are surprisingly still some states that are fully on board and, you know, it's not, I guess, super surprising because all bets are off when it comes to these candidates. Oh, I think what you just said, all bets are off. I think that's the critical thing. All bets are off here.

Is there anything normal? There is nothing normal about the way this case is going forward and here's why. It needs to be expedited. What expedited means, it needs to be reviewed quickly. Now, we can all say it, Harry and Jay and our team can say, yes, we think that's right, but the fact of the matter is, you know who it's going to be up to tomorrow?

Five justices of the Supreme Court, four to grant review, five to say it's expedited. All right. Well, we're going to be back in just a moment, but if you want to call in, this is a great time to do it.

1-800-684-3110. We love taking your calls, help to clarify some things. There are some comments coming in that kind of want explanation of what your case is against what, obviously, they're hearing that President Trump is fighting. What's the difference?

Why is there a difference there? So, let's break that down in the next segment. We'll do that coming up. So, stay tuned. Again, you can give us a call. 1-800-684-3110. We'll be right back.

Welcome back to Sekulow. Again, big question that is coming out. We were headed into the last segment, saw a lot of comments going in saying, OK, now that we know that President Trump has filed, can you give us an explanation of what's the difference between what you filed, the ACLJ has filed, and what President Trump's legal team has filed? Of course, there's a lot of overlap because the legal issues about whether the President is an officer for the purpose of the Constitution, both petitions address that.

Whether Section 3 of Article of the 14th Amendment is what's called self-executing, in other words, does Congress need to take action to get legislation put forward? There's overlap there. We raise a First Amendment issue because the Republican Party uniquely, as the party's First Amendment rights have been violated here to nominate the candidates of their choice and to put forward a ballot of candidates, especially in a primary where there's going to be multiple Republicans on the ticket.

So, it's not just Donald Trump. So, their First Amendment rights have been violated. So, while there's overlap, there's also distinction. So, the court's going to have to address that in the conference tomorrow, but the First Amendment issue is very serious.

It is. And so, one of the things that the Republican Party wants in Colorado and elsewhere is a vigorous debate among the candidates concerning policy issues. And so, if we deprive a particular candidate of being placed on the ballot, then that individual is deprived of participating in the debate and that has an effect on Republican voters. And so, I think it's clear beyond question that the First Amendment operates as a guarantee of the right of freedom of association and the right of freedom of speech with respect to what? A political party.

A political party is a quintessential element of a true democracy. And so, the failure, I think, of the Supreme Court or any court to address that issue is very, very unhelpful going forward and I certainly hope they look at that issue and that is an issue which we have hit hard. Interesting also.

We think this is the most important case the court's taken on this issue because it affects everybody's right to vote. The question is going to be, how does this move forward? And that's the question. We have this in our notes. What happens next? So, technically, by this afternoon, Andy, we're going to have, we'll file our last document with the court, assuming the other sides file their last document with the court. It will be available for conference tomorrow.

That's right. It does not mean it's going to be heard in conference. What happens is now, assuming all these filings take place today, the clerk will submit it to the court. Whether the court decides to take it up in conference and to go through each justice, as you pointed out, the procedure that they use to decide whether they're going to hear the case is another matter. The court does not have to do that. They have a full docket. They can choose not to do this.

I think that will not happen. I think the court is mindful of what is happening in the nation. You're not going to, these are not nine justices living in isolation in some place where they don't know what's going on. Of course they know what's going on and they know the significance of this case.

Logan, and the other thing I think that's important for people to understand is some of this is now going to be out of our control. In other words, we're doing the procedures. We're filing the appropriate certiorari petition.

There was briefs. Everybody, by the way, both sides, petitioners and respondents, everybody agrees the case needs to be heard and needs to be heard expeditiously. So there's no question about that. Everybody agrees it needs to move forward now. The question that we don't have control over, I mean you just don't, is once submitted, what the court is then going to move. How expeditiously will they remove? There was a thought that maybe they'll do a summary reversal or a procurium opinion and others yesterday were telling me, no, I think you're going to be prepared, you need to be prepared to argue this in 10 days or 14 days.

Then they may give argument to one side and not the other. We just don't know. I mean that, it's going to move. We'll keep everybody posted. But what we're saying is at this point, it's still a live controversy and we don't know exactly how the court will, as soon as we know, if we got something tomorrow afternoon, we'll come on, we'll get it out through our social media posts and whatnot. Yeah, make sure you're following us on everything. Everybody needs to be following us because there could be movement on this tomorrow.

Seriously. All right, let's go ahead and take some phone calls. Donna's calling with an interesting question out of Colorado on Line 1. Donna, you're on the air.

Hi. My question is, as a Colorado citizen, is there any way I can get the people that took the notes off the ticket to put them back on? Well, you are because we filed, in a sense, you're with us. So we're representing you, the folks of Colorado. And by representing the GOP, you're representing the GOP members.

And you really represent anybody in Colorado that wants to vote. So there's nothing else for you to do other than pray, and we encourage you to do that. But no, you have done what you could do by listening to this broadcast, supporting the work of the ACLJ, and allowed us to get this done in a very timely manner.

We were the first ones filed and the first ones up. So that's how that is handled. All right. Thank you for calling.

We appreciate it. You want to take another call? Sure. Let's go to Tony, who's calling on Line 2. And, Maine, you're on the air as well. Hi, guys. Yep. Yeah.

So, obviously, up here in Maine, we heard the news pretty quickly, and not just on the national, but the local news. I've given a lot of consideration to Shanna Bellows' statement, as her explanation, that the third section of that article does not actually say conviction, but says engaged in. And I've given a lot of thought to the fact that it also gives Congress the power to exonerate or to remove the disability.

It does. And so the question becomes, to me, who defines what engaged? If we don't use the conviction... Well, the 14th Amendment...

Here, let me jump in here, Chris Harry. The 14th Amendment has a Section 5, and it says, Congress shall implement by necessary legislation the enforcement of these. And it's not relegated that to the states. In fact, those Reconstruction Amendments to the Constitution were designed to put a check on the states.

People are forgetting that. The reason that those amendments were put in place is they didn't trust what the southern states were going to do. Absolutely. And so, in a reversal of the logic that you've just explained, Jay, the Secretary of State in Maine has basically suggested that Section 3 unleashes her to make the final interpretive decision with respect to what engaged in means. And it is clear beyond question that nothing that President Trump did amounted to engaging in an insurrection.

He told supporters to enter the Capitol, either in his speech or the eclipse or any of his statements or communications during the events. None of those statements basically support the claim that he engaged in an insurrection. Right.

Exactly. He hasn't been charged with insurrection. And the only time there's been an insurrection charge was at the United States House of Representatives in an impeachment article upon which the President, after trial in the Senate, was acquitted. Now, there's also been a movement on the Jack Smith case. We only got a minute here.

We'll get into this in the next segment. But very quickly, Andy, a motion for contempt has been filed by the Trump lawyers against Jack Smith. That's right.

Give us the 22nd version. The 22nd version is that Jack Smith has violated, according to the motion filed by President Trump's team, the stay order that Judge Chutkin put in place in the district court in that case, which said no more filings, no more litigation in this case until such time as I say so. He violated that by serving 4,000 pages of discovery, and they're seeking to hold him in contempt. And that's holding Jack Smith's office in contempt. Yes, all prosecutors.

So it's kind of a flip of the normal situation there. We'll get more into that in the next segment of the broadcast. Don't forget our Supreme Court victory fund. Just hours ago, we filed our second brief.

Now we are filing a third document today. Your support of the ACLJ makes that happen. Your gift will be doubled in our Supreme Court victory fund.

Let me ask you this. If you can, become a monthly member of the ACLJ. You become an ACLJ champion, and that really is having a dramatic impact on our work. ACLJ.org, if you can donate monthly, we really appreciate it.

Back with another half hour in just a moment. I'm sure we'll be reviewing it as soon as we're done with radio. But there was another development yesterday that happened in the court I think it's very important for people to understand. And that is not at the Supreme Court of the United States, but Jack Smith is on the receiving end of a contempt motion. He's really good at filing contempt motions.

Now we'll see how good he is at responding. Let's go through it slowly so people understand what it is. What happened is that Judge Chutkin, whose case this case is, has said, have entered an order staying any proceedings in the case, which means no more filings, no more action in the case. The case is on appeal. It's going to be argued in the D.C.

Circuit on January the 9th. And in violation of that, according to the Trump filing, Jack Smith filed 4,000 pages of discovery requests upon President Trump. When he wasn't supposed to, when he had an order that he knew had actual knowledge that he was in violation of the stay order that Judge Chutkin had entered in the case. And President Trump has now said, that's enough. You need to be held in civil contempt. You need to be responsible for the attorney's fees that the President has incurred in answering this. And we'll see what Judge Chutkin does in this case. We're taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110.

We'd love to hear from you trying to get as many calls as we can. So we know there's a lot of people who have questions about this entire situation. Sure. And are concerned. Yeah. What it can mean for sort of the fallout for the next few months, as we are only now a week and a half, two weeks away from the Iowa caucus.

Less than two weeks. You see all these parts happening. You see all these town halls that are happening. And look, there is finally some movement between some of the other candidates that are running. So we, I mean, clearly, if the play was to have a conversation, will people vote? As you said, it does give you that feeling of, is my vote going to count? It's not going to vote.

That's the big concern. So all of a sudden, not that the percentages on the polls are getting close, but there's certainly more than they were. Well, there's a war for, there's a battle in the Republican Party for second place.

Yeah. It's now between Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis, who, by the way, will be the only two people on the stage. On the debate.

On the debate. Which is when? It's coming up next week. Next week.

Next week. Ramaswami didn't make it. Chris Christie didn't make it.

I don't know who else was even on the, of course, Trump made it, but he's not going to be there. So there you have it. I mean, in reality, and this is true, it's a one man race for the top spot. Yeah.

And a fight for the second spot, depending on what that second spot will actually mean. Have you ever been this few of people before a primary? It doesn't feel like it.

This quick? No. No, usually there's still a whole cast of characters out there heading into a primary. I watched a report on CNN this morning, and it was interesting because they said there's never also been a situation where in Iowa, someone was plus 50%, and then in New Hampshire, that same person was plus 42%, and then in South Carolina, that same person is plus 37% against the former governor of that state.

Right. So Nikki Haley's going to have a big decision to make. Let's say she comes in third in Iowa, DeSantis second, and Trump first. But in New Hampshire, let's say it reverses. It's Trump first, Nikki Haley's second, DeSantis third.

Next is then in February, just what, three weeks after that, two and a half weeks, down to South Carolina. Trump is up, if I'm not wrong, Will, Trump is up by 37% in most of the polls. Yeah, I mean, it's a staggering number. That means Nikki Haley could lose her home state, so she's got to decide, do I want to take that risk politically? And that's a real question.

That's because that's a real risk. And we only have a minute until we go to break here, but in the next segment, are we going to be able to get to college, do you think, in the next segment at all? All right, we're going to take this first. Annabelle, we'll take your call when we get back from the break here up front because I think you have a really important comment that is important. We'll do that before we get to our guest, which is Mike Pompeo joining us here in the next segment. So stay tuned for that.

You can give us a call, 1-800-684-3110. I think it's important for people to know that the work of the ACLJ continues on, and right now we are in support of our Supreme Court Victory Fund. The Supreme Court Victory Fund, it's only going to be for a few days here because it's moving that quickly, but this will give us the resources for the Supreme Court case.

We've had a good response to it. I also want to encourage you to support the work monthly, and here's why. We're at 18,931 people that are supporting ACLJ every month. The goal is by next year, or the end of this year, that we're at 30,000. So you can become an ACLJ champion for life, liberty, and freedom, which means you also help us with these matching challenge campaigns. It's really a great program, and we encourage you to do it at ACLJ.org.

Any amount qualifies for that monthly gift, ACLJ.org. Welcome back to Sekulow. A lot of big news to discuss, obviously, now.

Movement very quickly at the U.S. Supreme Court. I want to go right to Secretary Pompeo is joining us, but I want to take this phone call because I think it sets it up. It does, and I can get Mike's comments on this as well. Go ahead, Annabelle. Hi.

A happier New Year to you, Jay and Jordan. Champion reporting for duty. Great. We appreciate that. I was in my office this morning, and I was thinking it is awe-inspiring that I can be a part of petitioning the Supreme Court through the ACLJ. There's no more important way to spend my resources than to support you.

I feel that America is literally slipping through our fingers daily. So I ask the listeners to come alongside of me and all the supporters, save our country and the freedoms it stands for, and to give as generously as possible to the ACLJ who can actually make a difference and do what we individually so want to do but can't. Annabelle, without you all, we don't get to do it. So it's a good team effort here, and I appreciate that. I want to go right to our Senior Counsel of Global Affairs, Mike Pompeo. And by the way, when you're supporting the ACLJ, we're allowed to have people on our team like Mike Pompeo, which is an amazing thing for us.

Before we get into an international thing, I do want to talk to you. You know politics. You've served in Congress.

You know what it's like. Everything is now teed up at the Supreme Court. So it's going to be taken from the clerk's office to the third floor, distributed to the justices, will be available for conference tomorrow. I expect but cannot guarantee that they will issue some order to move this along quickly.

Because of the uncertainty in the election process right now, with Maine going one way, Colorado another, I believe that the court has to enter into this and enter it in quickly. What's your sense? Well, Jay, I think that's absolutely true. I expect that they will also.

They can see. We're in the election, right? We're two weeks from the first primary. Democrats have their first events in a handful of weeks as well.

We are in election season square on, and we have enormous uncertainty about what's going on in these ballot processes. And so, you know, I take your comments and then the ones from Annabelle earlier. The ACLJ does remarkable work at delivering good outcomes that protect the foundational ideas that make that are on Annabelle's mind. I hope the Supreme Court will take it up. I've read what the ACLJ wrote.

It's very well done. And I'm hopeful they'll get to the right outcome, too, which is to give the people the chance to vote for the candidates they want to be the President. It's that simple.

This argument on the 14th Amendment is pretty darn straightforward. And I hope that the ACLJ's work will prompt the Supreme Court to take this up just, I don't know if it'll happen yet, early next week, but very, very quickly. I'm hopeful that we get an order tomorrow.

I can't guarantee it. And they may not give an order, and they may just convert the briefs that have been filed into Merit's briefs and issue an order next week without argument. But I'm getting the sense just in the last 24 hours that it's more likely going to be a Bush versus Gore, which means expedited briefing, oral argument, expedited opinion, which in that case only was 11 days.

So, I mean, they can move quick. On the other hand, in the Gonzalez versus Arizona election case, they did a per curiam order and reversed the case instantaneously. So, we'll see.

There's no way to predict that. I mean, I've been doing it for 40 years, and I still tell you, if anybody tells you they know what the Supreme Court's going to do, they don't. But we know what the process is, right? I think that's right, too. Look, I hope they do issue that order because it will provide the certainty that is needed in the days ahead and give just a little more time for thoughtful consideration against the backdrop of what I think we know the outcome ultimately has to be.

So, I hope that's also the case. We'll work hard, we'll pray hard, and we'll see how it goes. I want to turn to what's going on across the globe because I think this also impacts every single American in the pocketbook. Of course, it impacts our military and our allies like Israel. We have seen, again, continued strikes by the Houthis, but we've also seen a U.S. airstrike that killed an Iran-backed militia leader.

I want to kind of combine this to the second question. With the airstrikes in Baghdad a signal that the U.S. is willing to have a direct conflict with Iran leading into, of course, election season? Jordan, the Biden administration has given numerous signals indicating that they want to avoid escalation at all costs, indeed at the cost of the lives of people in the Middle East, the risk to lives in the Middle East. I hope that what took place there in Iraq was in fact messaging. I hope it was accompanied by not only the strike itself, but by messaging to the Iranians. We have the capability to speak with them and share with them this. This is the beginning of our effort to constrain your capacity to continue to impose these unbelievable barbaric acts on the people of Israel.

I hope that's what it was. I haven't seen any evidence yet that the Biden administration has mounted that campaign, but you can see from the last handful of weeks, right, eight, nine, ten weeks after October 7th, that there's no stopping these folks by jawboning them, by saying, gosh, we wish you'd stop. It's going to require the United States full-throated support of Israel, providing the munitions, the bullets, everything that they need. And second, by making clear to the Iranians, we'll impose costs on them. Absent that, Jordan, we're going to be at this for a long time, and the risk of escalation is actually greater if America doesn't demonstrate that resolve. We've seen Iran's ability to kind of begin to unify a world which it was not able to unify in the past because of the Shia and Sunni divide, which is kind of falling, as we see with Hamas directly, switching over to China.

And, Dad, this is huge for everyone in the world. But in a New Year's speech that Xi said about Taiwan, so another issue about trying to kind of draw the U.S. in, like we're talking about with Iran, this Taiwan, that the reunification of the motherland is a historical inevitability. Compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Strait should be bound by a common sense of purpose and share in the glory of the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. Is this, again, because our foreign policy is just too weak that they feel like they can come up with these basic statements saying, at any moment, we're just going to take you over, we reject your sovereignty 100%, we don't care what the U.S. has to say about it?

Boy, two thoughts. First of all, undoubtedly what happened in Afghanistan, the fact that that same Chinese Communist Party was able to fly a spy balloon over our country for a handful of days and we did nothing, those are signals that America is not prepared to defend itself and its friends and allies in the region. Second, you know, Xi Jinping has the history wrong, and that's important, and the administration ought to respond by making clear what the actual history is. This is not an independent nation, it's never been unified with China, and the cost of even speaking language like this ought to be direct and China ought to understand that you can't threaten an ally of the United States in this way without the United States rising to help make sure that that ally can be defended. I haven't seen the Biden administration do this in a way that is sufficiently serious. I hope that they will have heard what took place on New Year's, what Xi Jinping said, and make very clear to the world that that history is wrong, those facts are wrong, and the inevitability of what they refer to as reunification will not happen. I'm going to follow that question up, too, because here's the question. If they did something, if they took some type of military action against Taiwan and you were still in office, how would you couch that response from the United States? It's a tough question. Sure, it is. It also depends on exactly what it is.

You can imagine lots of different things, right? Provocation in the Philippines, surrounding a small island that's close to China but part of Taiwan proper, you can imagine each of those things. And the U.S. response ought to be different in each case, but we should make clear that the United States will respond with all of its might and all of its power. It's pretty clear that Xi Jinping intends to use their power to build empire, and then we should also, Jay, not forget we have lots of friends and allies in the region. Were Xi Jinping to make such a decision go after Taiwan? The Japanese are right there.

First island chain, same problem set. The South Koreans, the Australians, the Indians, all of these, they are impacted by an aggressive empire seeking Xi Jinping. And it wouldn't just be America we should ask to respond properly. We need our friends and allies to do that.

I hope the Biden administration is planning for that moment, and I hope that they will disclose that planning in a way that deters Xi Jinping from actually following through on the threats that he made on New Year's. Last question, I want to go back to where we started, which was on the issue of the case in Colorado. You're also a lawyer, legally trained. I think it's the most important election case, certainly than I've ever handled, but I think it's the most important election case in the country because it fundamentally affects everybody's right to vote. How serious do you see this challenge right now? Yeah, this is a, not to quote the current President, but this is a big deal with an adjective on front of it. To deny the leading candidate of one of the two major political parties the capacity to appear on the ballot on a novel theory that doesn't hold water, as you demonstrated so clearly in the briefing that the ACLJ put before the Supreme Court, is both ludicrous, and then as we step back, we can see the danger. The danger of denying people the capacity to vote for the candidates they choose fundamentally strikes at the heart of our republic. I'm confident that the Supreme Court will see it that same way as well. The legal analysis doesn't withstand any scrutiny. What the Colorado Supreme Court said is just fundamentally flawed. But second, as a matter of moral judgment and defending the capacity of people to vote, we all know the correct answer here, and I hope the Supreme Court gets there. And I'm pretty confident that the ACLJ's briefing and efforts will increase the likelihood that that takes place.

It happens really quick too. I will tell you this, I'm confident, but taking nothing for granted. Because I always assume I'm three votes behind. That's how I like to view these cases, even when you think you're not. So we appreciate that, Mike.

Thanks so much. Folks, we've got our Supreme Court Victory Fund up. It's to help fund this case on this rapid, expedited schedule at the Supreme Court of the United States. Any amount you donate will be doubled. And for those of you that can become a monthly donor, you become an ACLJ Champion, and you're helping fund these matching campaigns.

So do that at ACLJ.org. All right, welcome back to Sekulow. We are, too, taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110 as this Supreme Court case gets closer and closer, ultimately to potentially a decision by the court that would put to rest this 14th Amendment, Section 3 debate that we've seen popping up. You know, it's interesting how they're spinning it. They've got two victories. They don't like to talk about their 16 losses that they have been engaged in, including most recently Virginia, where we were in the process of intervening to represent the Virginia Republican Party there. But then being at the U.S. Supreme Court, now that that brief has been filed by President Trump, I know people in the court world and people that listen to our broadcasts, they love to learn about the procedure, and the Supreme Court has different procedures than any other court in the United States. So they've got this now. We were talking about before. They could issue an order Friday.

Now, explain to people what that means. That's not a decision necessarily, so I don't want to push this too much. First of all, they could meet Friday and not give us an order. No guarantee. Or it could come out Monday. Usually if it's a grant, it comes out on Friday.

They'll try to get them out right away. And they could specially set it, so they could reduce the briefing schedule. They can set oral argument earlier than you normally would, because here it wouldn't be until April or even, you know, March or April. So they may move it up.

But you know what? It's all speculation. At this point, it's a guess.

We don't know. Let's go to Israel. Jeff Balaban, our senior counsel who runs our office in Jerusalem, is there.

I just want to start with the basic question. Jeff, you're back. What's the tenor in the country right now? Well, everyone is a little bit on edge because of the report of the attack that took out the senior most Hamas leader ever killed, the second in command, in Lebanon, which is up north and has always been a very dangerous border. And people have been on high alert there since the beginning of this war.

And now people are waiting for the response, which has been promised. So is the sense that, because I see it already this way, that we're in a multi-front engagement. Israel's in a multi-front engagement right now.

Absolutely. Israel has been all along. There's been tension up front. There's been RPGs and missiles and rockets fired from up front. In fact, you know, it doesn't make the news when synagogues are destroyed. But the synagogue up north was destroyed by rockets from out of Lebanon. There's concerns of Syrian border a little bit, although now that we have the Golan Heights, it's much less of a concern. And there's concerns all along Judea and Samaria, where there are Arab communities. There's been violence emanating from those communities.

People, friends of mine who live there, they report nightly sort of rampaging and they have to fight them off. But so far it's been controlled. They aren't afraid of all-out war now on other fronts. One of the other issues that are going on simultaneously is that in a very unusual move, not unusual for South Africa, they filed a complaint at the ICJ, it's the International Court of Justice. And interestingly, this time, Sisi, Israel is going to fully respond.

Yes. And that is something new because usually Israel does not let the United Nations, you know, any of their bodies make a decision for them. And this court has acted pretty quickly. They have set oral arguments next week, January 11th and 12th, regarding South Africa's request for provisional measures. And this will be, this request will be addressed as a matter of urgency.

And of course, what South Africa has asked for is that the state of Israel shall immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza. So this court could rule very quickly a provisional measure next week on this issue. The oral argument is set for, and this is unbelievable, January 11th.

We don't yet know who's making an appearance. We are working on a brief right now that we're going to get filed in this regardless, Jordan. Yeah, I wanted to point that out to people because this is the ICJ. Everybody keeps putting up the International Criminal Court.

It's not. It's the International Court of Justice. And that is state versus state in this matter. Now, again, you've got, because the Palestinians aren't briefing it, you get past that issue.

That used to be the big issue. I remember doing a moot court in front of a South African Supreme Court judge, and that was the question for the moot court who was, did the... Wasn't it Goldstone? It was the Goldstone report, and it was whether or not they could take a case to the ICJ. And so I randomly drew out of the box, I guess, Israel. And you could, again, it was a very tough argument for the Palestinians who represented them to make because time and time again it says state, state, state.

How could you not be? But they found an ally. We knew... I think there's no firm.

Since we have been working with David Benjamin, we knew that South Africa would be the first country to try and move like this if something escalated to this level, and now they have. And it affects our attorney. Yeah, it does.

I mean, it affects a lot of friends of ours, too. I mean, this idea that you can have the criminal warrants. But so, Jeff, you've got it now. It's a multi-pronged... It's a military battle warfare. It's also lawfare.

Well, that's right. It's lawfare. And as you know, simultaneously, you know, again, always adopting Hamas talking points, meaning there's no credibility to these talking points whatsoever. But now you see it's a political war as well, everywhere in the world, including at home in the United States. And, you know, what's going to happen international criminal... Rather, the International Court of Justice will also... And it's all about narrative and talking points, about making believe that Israel is the bad guy here. Israel is the aggressor here. Israel is, and it's an absurdity. Israel could commit genocide in a heartbeat if it wanted to.

It has never wanted to. It has everything in its power to make the lives of the Arabs better. But this is all to mount this huge multi-front war against Israel physically, but also politically. You talk about politics, Jeff, so I wanted to kind of follow that up there. What is kind of the political situation? There's a special war cabinet set up, so until that's done, I don't think they'll see a lot of movement. But we're on the cusp, it seems like, in Israel of maybe a new generation of leaders or certainly different leaders who will ultimately come out of this with a lot of learning and a lot of new ideas about really the severity of danger they face surrounding them. There's something that the Israeli leaders need to understand, something that Jews in general need to learn, which is it's not so much what they do, it's who they are. And so Israel could be, as it is, the most benign, benevolent, liberty-loving, democracy-loving, freedom-loving, tolerant place in the world, but they're going to be called all kinds of horrific names.

And so the political next generation needs to understand that also, because there's always been a sense here of trying to appease governments, including the American governments, even though some of those American governments don't want to be appeased. So we saw recently, and this ties into this, that more and more the people around Joe Biden in his party are pushing back against the fact that he hasn't been harsher on Israel, that he hasn't condemned them more, that he's not forcing them into a ceasefire, which means a complete Hamas victory. It's extraordinary, by the way, that we're talking about this, while there are still well over 100 Israeli hostages whose fates are unknown and being held by Hamas. And yet the pressure is all on Israel, 100 percent on Israel, and now within the Democratic Party as well, within the White House as well, in the campaign as well. And so Israeli leaders, this next generation has to understand they cannot appease that, they cannot give in to that, because there's no path forward there. They have to stand firm on the truth, and a lot of that will come out, hopefully, if they defend themselves at the Court of Justice. Very good, Jeff, we appreciate it.

Thanks for the update as always. Folks, your support of the ACLJ impacts all these issues. We've talked about the Supreme Court of the United States, we've talked about the Middle East, we've come to you with a live report from our offices in Jerusalem. All of this happens because you support the work of the ACLJ. Now we are in a Supreme Court victory fund, we encourage you to participate there. ACLJ.org, any amount you donate will be doubled. But I also am asking you, those of you that can support the work of the ACLJ, it's really critical that we have, we're able to build out our ACLJ champions.

These are people that are standing with us each and every month. We are 100 shy from getting to 19,000. My goal by the end of this month, by the way, is to get as close to 20,000, yeah, like 19,700 to 20,000 by the end of this month. So go to ACLJ.org for that. I would love to see today 100 new folks sign up to be ACLJ champions. Pick an amount you're comfortable with. If it's $5, you're still going to be an ACLJ champion. If it's $50, if it's $250, do it today so that we are always prepared to go and fight for your rights and the rights of our allies. ACLJ.org, we'll talk to you tomorrow.