On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments about whether they should uphold the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to disqualify former president Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot for the 2024 presidential election. The justices seemed skeptical of the Colorado court’s decision. They expressed concern over whether a single state should have the authority to disqualify a candidate running for national office –potentially creating an election crisis nationwide. The case centers on the unprecedented question of whether Trump should be disqualified from the ballot due to his actions surrounding the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Let’s get into the details.
Background
In December, Colorado became the first state to disqualify Donald Trump from running in the 2024 presidential primary, deeming him unqualified to hold the highest office due to his participation in the January 6th attack on the Capitol. The Colorado Supreme Court based its decision on a “rarely used provision that bars insurrectionists from holding office.”
Trump’s legal team appealed the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments yesterday during a special session to decide whether Trump can remain on the Colorado ballot. The Supreme Court expedited the scheduling of arguments because this is the first time the High Court will have to consider Section 3 of the 14th Amendment –known as the insurrection clause. Though the 14th Amendment has existed since 1868, the Supreme Court has never considered Section 3 –wading into new Constitutional legal territory where the stakes are incredibly high.
Summary of Oral Arguments
Donald Trump and his team of lawyers found additional support from “republican attorneys general and conservative interest groups [that] have rallied to Trump’s defense.” Jonathan Mitchell, a Texas-based lawyer, represents the former president, and this was his sixth appearance in front of the Supreme Court.
Attorney Jason Murray argued on behalf of the lead plaintiff, 91-year-old Norma Anderson, as well as other republican voters and the government of Colorado. Plaintiffs rooted their argument in the idea that states have the legal authority to police their own ballots and, under state law, are entitled to “bar Trump for his role” on January 6. Murray argued to the justices that Trump was ineligible to run for president because “the Capitol riot was a once-in-history sort of event” and that those persons who engage in insurrection against the United States and the Constitution should not then be allowed to run for the office of the president.
Trump’s lawyer argued the opposite, claiming that the case against Trump is one of overreach and disenfranchising American voters. Trump’s lawyers contended that the 14th Amendment does not apply to the president because “he was not an officer of the United States as that term is used in the Constitution.” Attorney Mitchell further argued that Trump did not engage in insurrection and that though he is currently fighting 91 criminal charges across four different jurisdictions, “he hasn’t been charged with violating the statute against insurrection or rebellion.” He reminded the court that Congress did not convict Trump “in an impeachment process just weeks after the Capitol riot.”
Justices’ Skepticism Surrounding State Power
To many commentators, the Supreme Court appears prepared to allow Trump to remain on Colorado’s primary ballot, seeming weary to permit a single state to disqualify the leading Republican candidate. During the two hours of arguments, “the justices asked questions that suggested their often-divided bench could reach a unanimous or near-unanimous decision to reject the challenge to Trump’s eligibility brought by six Colorado voters.”
The arguments presented by each side and the hypotheticals posed by the justices brought up complex legal questions surrounding Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and its applicability, the extent of state power over elections, whether the events of January 6 amounted to an insurrection, and if they did what role Trump played in those events. If January 6 was an insurrection and Trump was liable, does that amount to disqualifying him from seeking reelection, and do states have the power to do that? Further, this case also brought up first-impression questions about defining what an “officer” versus “holding office” means in the context of the 14th Amendment and whether the provision even applies to Trump.
The Supreme Court seemed unanimous in their deep concern over whether the state of Colorado should have the power to ultimately decide what candidates remain on the primary ballots for all states in a national election. The justices expressed concern over the ripple effect of allowing that state’s Supreme Court’s decision to stand.
The Aftermath of the Supreme Court Fight
The justices did not indicate when they would issue a decision. However, given that primaries are just around the corner and this case’s high stakes, it seems likely that an opinion could be handed down in a couple of weeks. The Colorado Supreme Court put its December ruling on hold pending litigation, and Trump’s name “will appear on the state’s already printed March 5 primary ballot.”
Meanwhile, Trump has until Monday to appeal the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s unanimous decision to reject the former president’s claim that he is immune from prosecution on charges related to his role in the January 6th Capital riots. Whether the Supreme Court decides to hear that case is yet to be determined. Trump’s criminal trial will remain on hold if the Court decides to take it. If the justices decide not to take it, a criminal trial against Trump will move forward in D.C. –further muddying his reelection campaign. For more background on that case, read this post. Check back with the blog as we follow the 2024 presidential election and Trump’s legal battles as he pursues a second shot at the White House.
Interested in Election Law?
Check out Trellis! Trellis is an AI-driven, state trial court research and analytics platform. We make the fragmented U.S. state trial court system searchable through a single interface, and we provide practitioners with analytical insights on judges, cases, and opposing counsel to make actionable decisions in Court. Save time on legal research and writing by tracking lawsuits throughout various states and staying updated with documents from ongoing litigation. Request a demo today and experience the ease of our analytics and API, providing you with the tools needed to streamline your legal practice.
Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/08/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-ballot.html
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/08/1229176555/supreme-court-trump-colorado-ballot
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/08/trump-supreme-court-colorado-ballot
https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-brings-fight-stay-ballot-us-supreme-court-2024-02-08
Music: Disruptor’s Dance by Anka Mason
Blog Narration: Anka Mason
