The future of former President Donald Trump’s potential run in the 2024 presidential election is currently under deliberation by the U.S. Supreme Court. This landmark legal dispute has major implications for the upcoming election and hinges on the interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, a clause rarely invoked, that prohibits anyone who has participated in insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. from holding office. The focal point is Trump’s actions during the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack.
The dispute started in Colorado when voters filed a lawsuit to prevent Trump from being included on the primary ballot, arguing that his involvement in the Capitol riot disqualified him under the 14th Amendment. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in favor of the voters, offering a significant turning point as this application of the 14th Amendment’s Section 3 has seldom been scrutinized since its inception in 1868.
The Supreme Court’s consideration of this case extends beyond Colorado and could have far-reaching national impacts. Over 30 states are awaiting direction, as they face similar legal challenges to Trump’s candidacy under the same constitutional provision. Therefore, the high court’s decision could establish a precedent that influences the electoral landscape and the future application of the 14th Amendment.
Legal perspectives on this matter are diverse. Some experts assert that Trump’s actions on January 6 amount to insurrection, thereby disqualifying him from future office. Alternatively, others argue that the amendment was not intended to apply to presidential candidates, with both historical precedents and legal interpretations supporting each side. Trump’s legal representatives, appealing the Colorado decision, maintain that he is not subject to the disqualification clause and that his actions do not constitute insurrection. They argue that excluding him from the ballot would limit voter choice and overextend the scope of the 14th Amendment.
During oral arguments on Thursday, February 8, justices appeared hesitant about the prospect of disqualifying Trump from the ballot, suggesting that such standards should be set by Congress, not individual states. These views pose questions about the balance of power between state and federal authorities in determining election eligibility and its broader implications for American democracy.
Trump has selected Jonathan F. Mitchell as his legal counsel for this case. Mitchell, a former clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia and Texas solicitor general, gained recognition for crafting SB8, an unconventional anti-abortion law in Texas. This law allows ordinary citizens to sue anyone involved in performing an abortion. Mitchell has argued numerous cases at the Supreme Court and has taught law at esteemed universities including Stanford, the University of Texas, the University of Chicago, and George Mason University.
Representing the Colorado residents who initiated the lawsuit to block Trump’s name from the ballot is Jason C. Murray. A Harvard Law School graduate, Murray has clerked for Justices Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch, while Gorsuch was on the 10th Circuit. Murray is a seasoned trial lawyer.
The case has attracted significant attention, with over 80 amicus briefs filed, indicating the pronounced divisions and high stakes involved. Witnesses in the Colorado trial, including Representative Eric Swalwell and police officers who responded to the Capitol attack, provided firsthand accounts, while legal experts debated the meaning of insurrection and the historical context of the 14th Amendment.
The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling on this matter will not only influence Trump’s political trajectory but also tackle fundamental questions about insurrection, constitutional accountability, and qualifications for public office. As the nation pays close attention, the decision’s impact on the rule of law and the principles undergirding American democracy will be considerable.