Monday’s Supreme Court decision had impacts beyond the race for the White House. One key example: Central Pennsylvania voters will most likely see Scott Perry on their ballots this November.

The ruling that individual states can’t disqualify former President Donald Trump from the ballot extends to other federal offices, too. And that should clear Perry, a Pennsylvania Republican, of litigation attempting to have him thrown off the ballot for his role in trying to overturn the 2020 election.

“There’s no basis on which that suit can survive in light of this opinion,” Joshua Voss, Perry’s lead lawyer in the case, said after the Supreme Court ruling. “This should be the final word.”

Monday’s ruling effectively ended efforts that bubbled up in dozens of states to have Trump disqualified from the presidency for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol. Those efforts relied on an interpretation of the “insurrection clause” of the 14th Amendment that says people who engaged in insurrection after taking an oath to support the Constitution are barred from future office.

The Colorado Supreme Court had agreed with that argument, saying Trump was ineligible for the presidency; the Maine secretary of state and a state judge in Illinois followed suit.

But Trump was not the only elected official involved in the events of Jan. 6, and attention soon turned to members of Congress. In January, Gene Stilp, a Democratic activist, sued Perry and Pennsylvania Secretary of State Al Schmidt, saying Perry is ineligible for office and should be removed from the ballot.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that states don’t have the power to make that decision for federal offices.

“We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office,” the court’s unsigned majority opinion reads. “But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce [the insurrection clause] with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.”

Only Congress has that power, the court said, effectively shutting down not only the challenges to Trump’s eligibility but challenges against others as well, which election law experts said should apply to Perry.

“If it’s a federal office, like member of Congress, then no role for state courts,” said Ned Foley, an Ohio State University constitutional law professor.

The lawsuit against Perry was brought in state court. Schmidt, a Republican working in the administration of Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro, had opposed the suit, saying he did not have the power to remove Perry.

Perry hasn’t been charged with any crime regarding the Jan. 6 attack or other 2020 efforts, and Voss welcomed Monday’s ruling as clearing the path for Perry to be on the ballot as he runs for reelection.

“We are hopeful that it’ll be withdrawn soon,” he said of the lawsuit. “And if not, we will certainly move to make that happen.”

A leading Democratic super PAC is up with a $2 million ad buy attempting to paint newly declared Wisconsin Senate GOP candidate Eric Hovde as an out-of-state California banker.

“Multi-millionaire California banker Eric Hovde: On Wisconsin’s side?” the ad, shared exclusively with POLITICO and airing statewide in Wisconsin, asks. “Don’t bank on it.”

The campaign, run by Senate Majority PAC, comes just days after Hovde officially announced his bid to unseat two-term Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) in a critical race for control of the upper chamber.

“No matter how many bizarre videos he posts online, Wisconsin voters will see Hovde for the out of touch carpetbagger that he really is,” said Senate Majority PAC President JB Poersch in a statement.

Baldwin last won reelection in 2018 by an 11-point margin over Republican Leah Vukmir, even as President Joe Biden bested former President Donald Trump by less than a point in Wisconsin during the 2020 presidential race.

Republicans took notice of the unusually early ad buy from the Democratic-aligned group.

“How bad are @TammyBaldwin and @SenSchumer panicking about @EricHovde?” asked Mike Berg, spokesperson for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter. “Schumer just laid down a TV buy starting tomorrow.”

Ally Mutnick contributed to this report.

Republicans on the House Oversight Committee are launching an investigation into the Biden administration’s decision to withdraw its support for a trio of World Trade Organization e-commerce proposals that previous administrations had backed.

In a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai obtained by POLITICO, Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) complained of a “lack of adequate” consultations with Congress prior to the decision.

And he requested a lengthy list of correspondence, memos, meeting notes and other documents related to USTR’s policy discussions with left-leaning outside groups, members of Congress and other government agencies in the lead up to its October 2023 announcement that it was reversing the U.S. government’s past positions in support of the free flow of data across borders.

“The Committee seeks to understand interactions that may lead to necessary reforms, including legislation Congress could pursue setting new transparency requirements for USTR in forming negotiating positions,” Comer said in the letter.

The letter references a January report from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which argued that documentation obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests indicate that progressive trade and civil society groups share a “privileged relationship” with the U.S. trade office. Comer said the documents released by the Chamber “shed light” on the “cozy” relationship between those groups and Tai’s office.

“Disturbingly, the pattern of these shady engagements suggest they influenced your controversial decision to abandon longstanding U.S. commitments in promoting digital freedom and U.S. competitiveness in digital markets,” the committee letter said.

One step back: A group of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and industry stakeholders have assailed the Biden administration’s decision to pivot away from his predecessors’ positions on cross-border data flows, data localization requirements and source code, which they suggest has been unduly influenced by progressive groups.

Among other things, the House oversight committee is asking for documentation and other information related to USTR’s communication with Lori Wallach, director of the Rethink Trade program at American Economic Liberties Project, a left-leaning group that is critical of existing free trade agreements, and USTR’s recently departed chief of staff Heather Hurlburt, including their chats via Signal, an audio and video messaging mobile application that uses end-to-end encryption, according to the letter.

“Discussion over Signal chat about either trade policy or consultation opportunities would be a federal record, and USTR should have taken steps to preserve such a record from a non-official communications channel. However, no such record appears to have been disclosed,” Comer wrote.

FWIW: The progressive trade and civil society groups have consistently argued that accusations from Chamber and other parties are hypocritical, and that it is typical for industry groups to advocate for their preferred policy positions.

Comer gave USTR a March 18 deadline to provide the requested documents and information.

Senate Minority Whip John Thune formally confirmed to local South Dakota media that he’s running to succeed Mitch McConnell as Senate GOP leader.

“I hope to be [leader],” Thune said to South Dakota’s KELO in a clip posted to X, formerly known as Twitter, on Monday. “I’m going to do everything I can to convince my colleagues.”

Thune joins Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who previously held the post Thune now occupies, as formally declared candidates to become Senate Republican leader. Others are expected to join the race.

The veteran South Dakota legislator declined to directly answer whether former President Donald Trump’s refusal to accept his loss in the 2020 presidential election gave Thune pause before he endorsed the presumptive GOP nominee this cycle.

“I’ve said what I’ve said — and I’m not going to re-litigate it,” Thune said. “The important thing now is … that we move forward in a way that hopefully gets this country back on track.”

Asked about his decision to endorse Trump, Thune said: “I let the process play out … At this point now, it’s really down to Biden and Trump. And that, to me, is a very clear choice.”

Congressional Republicans took a victory lap after the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to restore former President Donald Trump to the Colorado ballot as their Democratic colleagues stayed mostly quiet.

“Today’s unanimous 9-0 Supreme Court decision is a victory for the American people, the Constitution, and our Republic,” said Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), a member of House GOP leadership who Trump is considering as a vice presidential candidate. “We the people decide elections, not unelected radical leftists.”

The decision from the court said states may not disqualify candidates under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Oral arguments did not go well for Colorado during the February hearing before the court, and it was widely expected that justices would rule in favor of Trump’s right to be on the ballot by a comfortable margin.

Many GOP lawmakers characterized it as a win for democratic institutions and the electoral process, though others blatantly supported it as a win for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

“Big win for President Trump!” wrote the House Judiciary Committee Republicans in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter. That sentiment was almost immediately echoed by other Republicans.

“The Supreme Court made the right decision in this case,” wrote retiring Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), whose state originally kicked Trump off the ballot. “Colorado voters — not partisan politicians — should decide who they want to lead our nation. Just 8 months from now, voters will go the polls [sic] to decide that question.”

House Republican leadership mostly aligned with Buck’s sentiment. Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) called the decision a “resounding rebuke” and said he was “glad the Supreme Court got this right.” Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), meanwhile, called it “a big win for the American people and election integrity.”

Democrats were slower to respond to the ruling, but those few that did were critical of the Supreme Court’s decision.

“The text of our Constitution may be inconvenient and unpleasant to execute, but the text is clear despite any loophole the republican supreme court carves out,” Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) wrote in a post.

Katherine Tully-McManus contributed.

Lawmakers will be pouring over the massive 6-bill spending package released this weekend as they try and pass it ahead of Friday’s newest spending deadline.

It’s almost halfway through the fiscal year, but Congress is still trying to figure out how to fund the government with fresh spending levels. (Another goal: Making the current stopgap spending patch the last.) The weekend release was aimed at giving House lawmakers at least 72 hours to review the spending plan before voting.

The package up for consideration this week totals more than $459 billion, including side adjustments such as emergency money.

Speaker Mike Johnson is trying to sell the package to his conference with “wins,” including “key conservative policy victories, rejected left-wing proposals, and imposed sharp cuts to agencies and programs critical” to President Joe Biden’s agenda.

One GOP victory is language in the veterans funding bill to preserve gun rights for military veterans who need fiduciary help with their VA benefits.

But conservatives are likely to focus on the policy proposals and major spending cuts that didn’t make it.

Democrats are celebrating that they staved off an array of policy riders that Republicans sought, including major limitations on which pharmacies could sell the abortion pill mifepristone. The WIC nutrition assistance program for low-income women, infants and children will see a $1 billion increase over current levels, for a total of $7 billion.

Democrats killed a proposal from Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) to restrict SNAP food aid purchases, which Republicans wanted in exchange for the boost to WIC.

But remember: Congress still faces a March 22 deadline to secure funding for the rest of the government in a second package that is expected to be an even tougher challenge. That will need to include funding for the Pentagon, health programs, education and many others amounting to nearly 70 percent of overall discretionary funding.

Caitlin Emma and Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report. 

Nikki Haley has landed her first Senate endorsement of the presidential cycle: moderate Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).

The endorsement comes ahead of Alaska’s Tuesday presidential caucus and as the former governor and ambassador has lost all contests thus far to former President Donald Trump.

“America needs someone with the right values, vigor, and judgment to serve as our next President — and in this race, there is no one better than her,” Murkowski said in a statement.

Murkowski’s leanings are hardly in step with the grassroots of her party: She voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial following the Jan. 6 insurrection.

She joins conservative Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) as Haley’s lone endorsers in Congress.

The House is moving to consider legislation, named after a murdered Georgia nursing student, that would require the detention of any undocumented immigrant convicted of theft.

The Laken Riley Act, apparently introduced on Friday, will be before the House Rules Committee on Tuesday, per a notice — the final step before floor action. The legislation would require the detention of anyone charged or convicted of “the essential elements of any burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting offense,” according to the text.

Riley was allegedly murdered by an undocumented immigrant who entered the U.S. illegally from Venezuela. Republicans renewed calls for stricter immigration policies, repeatedly taking to the House floor this week to highlight the case.

“Is there anything more horrific than we have seen from the Laken Riley situation — how an illegal from Venezuela made it across the border illegally, went to New York, committed all kinds of crimes, was let out by the weak, foolish, ideological prosecutors in New York, and then went on to Georgia and murdered a beautiful young girl?” asked Rep. Dan Meuser (R-Pa.) on the floor Thursday.

House Republicans are pushing for more information on an FBI informant now who was recently indicted for alleged fabrication of Biden family bribery allegations — claims that GOP investigators once saw as a boost to their impeachment probe.

Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) sent a letter on Friday to FBI Director Christopher Wray, asking for a sweep of information related to Alexander Smirnov. He is the FBI informant facing charges from DOJ special counsel David Weiss, who is running the yearslong federal investigation into Hunter Biden, the president’s son.

“Pursuant to the House’s impeachment inquiry into President Biden, as well as the Committees’ Constitutional oversight authority over the Department of Justice and the FBI, the Committees require documents and information related to the FBI’s handling of Mr. Smirnov and the information he provided to the FBI for over a decade,” the Republicans wrote in a letter to Wray.

Jordan and Comer added that they had relied on the FBI’s description of Smirnov as “highly credible.”

The two Republicans are giving the FBI until March 15 to hand over details on any criminal cases that included information from Smirnov; how much Smirnov was paid for his cooperation and how he was validated as a confidential source; and any records related to concerns within the FBI of wrongdoing or inaccurate reporting related to him.

The two Republicans, who are leading the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, also want any records related to an investigation of the Biden bribery allegations.

In a 2020 FBI document, released publicly by Republicans last year, Smirnov recounted to a bureau interviewer what he characterized as a conversation with Mykola Zlochevsky, the owner of the Ukraine energy company Burisma. Smirnov claimed that Zlochevsky said he paid Hunter Biden and Joe Biden a bribe — an allegation that was fabricated, per a recent DOJ court filing.

Comer and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) first hinted at the existence of the allegations in May, when the Kentucky Republican issued a subpoena citing a whistleblower complaint. That sparked a weekslong standoff with the FBI, which ultimately allowed members of the House Oversight Committee to see, but not retain, the document. Grassley also publicly released a redacted version of the form, which he said that he was able to do because of disclosures from whistleblowers.

Both Republicans and Democrats on the Oversight Committee said at the time that the FBI described their source — who turned out to be Smirnov — as credible. But the bureau also directly warned lawmakers that information being included in the FBI record, known as an FD-1023, did not mean it was verified.