U.S. Supreme Court has emerged as the arbiter of former President Donald Trump’s bid to reclaim the White House.
On Thursday, the court is scheduled to hear arguments concerning Trump’s appeal of a Colorado Supreme Court decision, which deemed him ineligible for another presidential run due to his violation of a provision in the 14th Amendment barring individuals who participated in insurrection from holding office.
Anticipation is rife among legal analysts who predict the nation’s highest judicial body may overturn the Colorado ruling rather than disqualify the prominent figure from the Republican presidential nomination.
More Read
At the heart of the matter lies Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, succinctly stating, “No Person shall… hold any office… who, having previously taken an oath… to support the Constitution… shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
Trump’s legal team contends this provision does not extend to the presidency, citing its explicit mention of senators, representatives, and electors but not the executive branch. They argue that the language requiring an oath to “support” the United States does not align with the presidential oath’s wording, which pledges to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution. Additionally, they maintain that the term “officer” pertains to appointed officials, not the president.
This argument persuaded the initial district court judge in Colorado, who acknowledged Trump’s involvement in the insurrection but questioned its application to the presidency. However, the Colorado Supreme Court overturned this aspect of the ruling.
Trump’s legal team further asserts that the determination of who falls under this rarely invoked clause is inherently political and beyond the jurisdiction of unelected judges. They deny the characterization of the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot as an insurrection, arguing its limited scope and Trump’s exercise of free speech rights.
Critics skeptical of applying Section 3 to Trump echo concerns raised by dissenting Colorado Supreme Court justices, emphasizing the violation of Trump’s due process rights and advocating for a structured legal process.
A decision from the Supreme Court is anticipated by June, just ahead of the Republican National Convention, where Trump seeks renomination. The case holds significant implications not only for Trump and his supporters but also for the broader landscape of American democracy and the rule of law.
The partisan landscape surrounding the case is complex, with Democrats advocating for Trump’s disqualification from the ballot and some Republicans opposing such efforts. The lawsuit was initiated by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a left-leaning group, yet finds support from conservative legal scholars who prioritize strict adherence to constitutional text.
The case, brought forward by Republican or unaffiliated voters in Colorado, underscores its bipartisan nature, evidenced by the 4-3 split among the state’s Supreme Court justices.
Several potential outcomes loom, ranging from upholding Colorado’s ruling to a complete dismissal of Trump’s disqualification under Section 3. However, the prospect of the Supreme Court deferring the issue to Congress, potentially resulting in a constitutional crisis and political stalemate, is met with apprehension by legal experts.
