No. of Recommendations: 5
The overall logic is appealing but it isn't clear these judges are playing that many moves ahead.
It doesn't require thinking that many moves ahead.
It's pretty basic "that's above my pay grade" analysis. This is an unprecedented request (literally), in a highly-visible and deeply political area of law. Trial court level judges are pretty junior in the judicial hierarchy - they're not generally supposed to, and not often asked to, blaze a whole lot of new legal trails. It's a pretty understandable position to lean towards preferring that the first court to rule prohibiting a major-party nominee can't be on the ballot ought to be a higher court than a trial court - either Circuit Court or SCOTUS.
This is a classic "punt" decision. The district court judge tied up all of the factual questions that are always decided at the lowest court level (was there an insurrection? what was Trump's role?) so that there's not likely any need for upper courts to remand back. But the judge came down on the "no action" side on the purely legal question (is the President an "officer" within the meaning of the Clause) that the upper courts are perfectly capable of addressing without deferring to the evidentiary function of the district court. IOW, all the fact questions were resolved, the status quo remains, and the legal issues are queued up for a more senior court to rule on.
