It was Trump v. Anderson where a bunch of n'er-do-wells in Colorado were trying to argue that Trump couldn't be on the ballot thanks to the 'insurrectionist' claim.
While the finding ruled that Congress was the enforcement arm of the 14th amendment's Section 3 rule, I'd submit that comments made in the Concurrence opinion bear some weight here:
"Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case."
These words were signed off by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. Perhaps they'd agree that New York is trying to do the same here?
[ The gotcha here is this: the bulk of their opinion was countering the majority, which gave Congress the power of determining the 'insurrection' question. This trio might then be persuaded -- as wrong as they would be on that point -- that New York exercised a proper legal proceeding against Trump, and therefore everything is cool with them. Hopefully, there's still at least 5 votes to the contrary. ]
The problem is still procedure. The Colorado case was an appeal from the Colorado Supreme Court. Bush v. Gore was an appeal from the Florida Supreme Court. Appeals from State high courts are governed by a writ of certiori. But this would be an appeal from a NY trial court (which, ironically, is called the “supreme court” but it has a different meaning in New York).
Mark keeps making vague references to “common law writs.” Well what is this writ that allows the SCOTUS to yoink a case from a state trial court? It’s not a writ of habeas corpus, it’s not a writ of mandamus (those are the only two whose names I remember). I’d love to hear it. But I’m skeptical.