Zoe Tillman has the judge’s opinion here. The judge finds that the Secretary holds no authority to exclude a candidate under state law. He goes on to find that Congress holds the power to remove the disability, which he finds weighs in favor of finding a “political question.” Citing Rucho v. Common Cause, he goes on to find,
The instant case presents potential for running afoul of these principles. In the companion case of 23-000128-MB, the Secretary has included in Exhibit 1, a list of active and recently dismissed state and federal cases, each involving former President Trump. There are 37 cases on the Secretary’s list, and it does not include either of the companion cases currently before this Court. Should this trend continue, it is conceivable that there could be 50 state cases, and a number of concurrent federal ones, each with a judicial officer or officers who ‘even when proceeding with best intentions,’; have the potential to issue partial or even totally conflicting opinions on the basis of a significant number of potentially dispositive issues. Some of these cases, such as Anderson, are already proceeding to trial. Prior to the United States Supreme Court’s intervention, none of these opinions, or factual findings, are binding on any other court.
The questions involved are by their nature political. The number of cases presents the risk of completely opposite and potentially confusing opinions and outcomes, which will certainly “expose the political life of the country to months, or perhaps years, of chaos.” Moreover, there is no “limited and precise rationale” to guide this Court and the others that is also “clear, manageable, and politically neutral.” Because the cases involve the office of the President, such confusion and lack of finality will be more pronounced. See Nixon, 506 US at 236.