CBS News
Maine court says Trump can appear on primary ballot for now, pending Supreme Court ruling
Washington — The Maine Superior Court on Wednesday cleared the way for former President Donald Trump to appear on the state’s Republican presidential primary ballot for now, sending a dispute over his eligibility for a second term back to the secretary of state for further proceedings once the U.S. Supreme Court issues a ruling in a similar case from Colorado.
In a 17-page order, Justice Michaela Murphy, who sits on the superior court in Augusta, said that a December decision from Secretary of State Shella Bellows, a Democrat, should remain on hold until the Supreme Court renders its decision in the Colorado dispute.
Noting that Maine’s primary is scheduled for March 5, Murphy wrote that “unless the Supreme Court before that date finds President Trump disqualified to hold the office of president, eligible Maine voters who wish to cast their vote for him in the primary will be able to do so, with the winner being determined by ranked-choice voting.”
She said that Maine law grants her the authority to send the matter back to Bellows and order her to issue a new ruling once the Supreme Court decides the Colorado case.
Murphy said that because there are many federal issues raised in the other dispute, “it would be imprudent for this court to be the first court in Maine to address them.”
“Put simply, the United States Supreme Court’s acceptance of the Colorado case changes everything about the order in which these issues should be decided, and by which court,” she wrote. “And while it is impossible to know what the Supreme Court will decide, hopefully it will at least clarify what role, if any, state decision-makers, including secretaries of state and state judicial officers, play in adjudicating claims of disqualification brought under Section Three of the 14th Amendment.”
The background of the Maine case
Trump asked the Maine Superior Court to review the decision from Bellows, who concluded that he is not qualified to hold the presidency under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The provision, enacted after the Civil War, bars anyone who swears an oath to support the Constitution and then engages in insurrection against it from holding public office.
Acting in response to two challenges to Trump’s candidacy under Section 3, Bellows concluded that Trump engaged in insurrection by inflaming his supporters in the weeks before and on Jan. 6, and directing them to march to the Capitol to disrupt Congress’ certification of the 2020 election.
“The events of January 6, 2021 were unprecedented and tragic. They were an attack not only upon the Capitol and government officials, but also an attack on the rule of law,” she wrote. “The evidence here demonstrates that they occurred at the behest of, and with the knowledge and support of, the outgoing President. The U.S. Constitution does not tolerate an assault on the foundations of our government, and Section 336 requires me to act in response.”
Bellows was the first and only state election official to unilaterally find Trump is not eligible for the state’s primary ballot, though she paused the effect of her decision to allow him to appeal to the superior court. Maine and a dozen other states will hold their primary elections on March 5.
The former president had urged the court to toss out Bellows’ ruling and require her to immediately place his name on the primary ballot. Trump’s legal team alleged that Bellows was a “biased decisionmaker” who should’ve recused herself from the matter and said she had no legal authority under Maine law to consider the constitutional issues raised by the voters contesting his eligibility for office.
Bellows’ ruling, Trump’s lawyers wrote in a filing to the Superior Court, “was the product of a process infected by bias and pervasive lack of due process.” They also argued that even if Maine law allowed the secretary of state to consider challenges to Trump’s candidacy under Section 3, she could not have done so, under the theory that the provision requires congressional legislation to give it effect and does not bar a candidate from running for office.
Trump’s legal team further argued that the measure does not apply to the presidency or those who have sworn the presidential oath and contested that he engaged in insurrection.
“For the first time in our nation’s history, a secretary of state has taken it upon herself to take away the choice of who should be a major party’s nominee for president of the United States from the people, based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,” his lawyers wrote. “This usurpation of the power of the people of Maine to choose their own political leaders is contrary to both state and federal law, including the Constitution of the United States.”
Bellows refuted Trump’s allegation that she was biased against him, writing in court papers that she conducted an impartial hearing on the matter of his eligibility. Lawyers for the state also argued that the text of Section 3 does not include any requirement for Congress to pass enforcement legislation.
“Mr. Trump knowingly incited an attack on the Capitol to prevent the peaceful transfer of power,” they told the superior court. “The record is such that the secretary — consistent with the deferential standard of review — permissibly concluded that Mr. Trump engaged in insurrection and is accordingly not qualified for the office of the president by operation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.”
The issue of whether Trump is eligible for a second term in the White House is set to be decided by the Supreme Court, which agreed to review a decision from the Colorado Supreme Court finding he is disqualified from holding the presidency.
The landmark 4-3 decision from the Colorado court marked the first time Section 3 has been used to successfully render a presidential candidate ineligible. The Colorado Supreme Court put its decision on hold to allow Trump time to appeal.
A ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court could determine whether Trump can be listed on the primary ballot not only in Colorado, but across the country. The justices are expected to issue a decision soon after arguments on Feb. 8.
CBS News
Couple charged for allegedly stealing $1 million from Lululemon in convoluted retail theft scheme
A couple from Connecticut faces charges for allegedly taking part in an intricate retail theft operation targeting the apparel company Lululemon that may have amounted to $1 million worth of stolen items, according to a criminal complaint.
The couple, Jadion Anthony Richards, 44, and Akwele Nickeisha Lawes-Richards, 45, were arrested Nov. 14 in Woodbury, Minnesota, a suburb of Minneapolis-St. Paul. Richards and Lawes-Richards have been charged with one count each of organized retail theft, which is a felony, the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office said. They are from Danbury, Connecticut.
The alleged operation impacted Lululemon stores in multiple states, including Minnesota.
“Because of the outstanding work of the Roseville Police investigators — including their new Retail Crime Unit — as well as other law enforcement agencies, these individuals accused of this massive retail theft operation have been caught,” a spokesperson for the attorney’s office said in a statement on Nov. 18. “We will do everything in our power to hold these defendants accountable and continue to work with our law enforcement partners and retail merchants to put a stop to retail theft in our community.”
Both Richards and Lawes-Richards have posted bond as of Sunday and agreed to the terms of a court-ordered conditional release, according to the county attorney. For Richards, the court had set bail at $100,000 with conditional release, including weekly check-ins, or $600,000 with unconditional release. For Lawes-Richards, bail was set at $30,000 with conditional release and weekly check-ins or $200,000 with unconditional release. They are scheduled to appear again in court Dec. 16.
Prosecutors had asked for $1 million bond to be placed on each half of the couple, the attorney’s office said.
Richards and Lawes-Richards are accused by authorities of orchestrating a convoluted retail theft scheme that dates back to at least September. Their joint arrests came one day after the couple allegedly set off store alarms while trying to leave a Lululemon in Roseville, Minnesota, and an organized retail crime investigator, identified in charging documents by the initials R.P., recognized them.
The couple were allowed to leave the Roseville store. But the investigator later told an officer who responded to the incident that Richards and Lawes-Richards were seasoned shoplifters, who apparently stole close to $5,000 worth of Lululemon items just that day and were potentially “responsible for hundreds of thousands of dollars in loss to the store across the country,” according to the complaint. That number was eventually estimated by an investigator for the brand to be even higher, with the criminal complaint placing it at as much as $1 million.
Richards and Lawes-Richards allegedly involved other individuals in their shoplifting pursuits, but none were identified by name in the complaint. Authorities said they were able to successfully pull off the thefts by distracting store employees and later committing fraudulent returns with the stolen items at different Lululemon stores.
“Between October 29, 2024 and October 30, 2024, RP documented eight theft incidents in Colorado involving Richards and Lawes-Richards and an unidentified woman,” authorities wrote in the complaint, describing an example of how the operation would allegedly unfold.
“The group worked together using specific organized retail crime tactics such as blocking and distraction of associates to commit large thefts,” the complaint said. “They selected coats and jackets and held them up as if they were looking at them in a manner that blocked the view of staff and other guests while they selected and concealed items. They removed security sensors using a tool of some sort at multiple stores.”
CBS News contacted Lululemon for comment but did not receive an immediate reply.
CBS News
Former Trump national security adviser says next couple months are “really critical” for Ukraine
Washington — Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, a former national security adviser to Donald Trump, said Sunday that the upcoming months will be “really critical” in determining the “next phase” of the war in Ukraine as the president-elect is expected to work to force a negotiated settlement when he enters office.
McMaster, a CBS News contributor, said on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” that Russia and Ukraine are both incentivized to make “as many gains on the battlefield as they can before the new Trump administration comes in” as the two countries seek leverage in negotiations.
With an eye toward strengthening Ukraine’s standing before President-elect Donald Trump returns to office in the new year, the Biden administration agreed in recent days to provide anti-personnel land mines for use, while lifting restrictions on Ukraine’s use of U.S.-made longer range missiles to strike within Russian territory. The moves come as Ukraine marked more than 1,000 days since Russia’s invasion in February 2022.
Meanwhile, many of Trump’s key selection for top posts in his administration — Rep. Mike Waltz for national security adviser and Sens. Marco Rubio for secretary of state and JD Vance for Vice President — haven’t been supportive of providing continued assistance to Ukraine, or have advocated for a negotiated end to the war.
McMaster said the dynamic is “a real problem” and delivers a “psychological blow to the Ukrainians.”
“Ukrainians are struggling to generate the manpower that they need and to sustain their defensive efforts, and it’s important that they get the weapons they need and the training that they need, but also they have to have the confidence that they can prevail,” he said. “And any sort of messages that we might reduce our aid are quite damaging to them from a moral perspective.”
McMaster said he’s hopeful that Trump’s picks, and the president-elect himself, will “begin to see the quite obvious connections between the war in Ukraine and this axis of aggressors that are doing everything they can to tear down the existing international order.” He cited the North Korean soldiers fighting on European soil in the first major war in Europe since World War II, the efforts China is taking to “sustain Russia’s war-making machine,” and the drones and missiles Iran has provided as part of the broader picture.
“So I think what’s happened is so many people have taken such a myopic view of Ukraine, and they’ve misunderstood Putin’s intentions and how consequential the war is to our interests across the world,” McMaster said.
On Trump’s selections for top national security and defense posts, McMaster stressed the importance of the Senate’s advice and consent role in making sure “the best people are in those positions.”
McMaster outlined that based on his experience, Trump listens to advice and learns from those around him. And he argued that the nominees for director of national intelligence and defense secretary should be asked key questions like how they will “reconcile peace through strength,” and what they think “motivates, drives and constrains” Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Trump has tapped former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard to be director of national intelligence, who has been criticized for her views on Russia and other U.S. adversaries. McMaster said Sunday that Gabbard has a “fundamental misunderstanding” about what motivates Putin.
More broadly, McMaster said he “can’t understand” the Republicans who “tend to parrot Vladimir Putin’s talking points,” saying “they’ve got to disabuse themselves of this strange affection for Vladimir Putin.”
Meanwhile, when asked about Trump’s recent selection of Sebastian Gorka as senior director for counterterrorism and deputy assistant to the president, McMaster said he doesn’t think Gorka is a good person to advise the president-elect on national security. But he noted that “the president, others who are working with him, will probably determine that pretty quickly.”
CBS News
Sen. Van Hollen says Biden is “not fully complying with American law” on Israeli arms shipments
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.