maybe I'm misunderstanding but I'm not sure why this resolves no- they could still decline to intervene in a trump case?

@SemioticRivalry Sorry you are right. Can you reopen for me?

Does this include the case to exclude him from the ballot in Colorado?

Edit: Nevermind, misread the question.

Does this mean “there has to be at least one case involving Trump that they decline to intervene in” or “for every single case involving Trump, they decline to intervene”?

And “case involving Trump” seems quite ambiguous as well. For example, the court recently heard arguments in the case Vidal v. Elster, about whether a trademark should be granted for the phrase “Trump too small”; would that count?