Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the court. I'm John Carlo Conoparo. I'm Zach Smith. And welcome to Scotus 101, where we break down what's happening at the Supreme Court, what the justices are up to, and other things related to our favorite branch of government.

Welcome back to Scotus 101. G.C., how are you doing today?

Doing great, Zach. Welcome back. There are two developments to talk about this week.

You want to start us off, Zach?

Sure thing. Well, I can guess both of those developments involved Donald Trump and cases he has going on right now. So first up,

we'll deal with the new case that the court has agreed to hear. The court announced that it

will hear former President Trump's presidential immunity case on April 25th. So stay tuned. I think

that'll certainly be a very important case that a lot of people

will be watching very intently. And you're right. Of course, the other issue this week is the

decision in Trump v. Anderson. Zach, why don't I summarize the case and you can talk about the

implications? Excellent. Let's do it. All right. So Trump v. Anderson, the court unanimously

held that Colorado cannot kick Trump off the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

So by way of a very short review, Section 3 says, in short, that nobody shall hold office

under the United States if, having previously taken an oath as an officer of the

United States, he shall have engaged in insurrection. Lastly, Section 5 of the 14th Amendment

says that Congress may enforce this provision by appropriate legislation. There were many ways that

the court could have decided this case. It could have said that the president is not an officer of the United States,

that the presidency is not an office under the United States,

that Trump did not engage in insurrection,

that the provision is not self-executing,

or that the state officials have no power to enforce the provision.

In the opinion, the majority, which was procurium, that means written

...