A pivotal Supreme Court case concerning the interpretation of the 14th Amendment stands at the center of former President Donald Trump’s potential political prospects. The amendment prohibits individuals involved in “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States from holding office, and its application to Trump’s possible candidacy in 2024 hangs in the balance.
Following Trump’s alleged role in instigating the violent Capitol breach on January 6, 2021, lawmakers and activists have invoked the 1868 amendment, aiming to block his future presidential bids.
However, the Supreme Court has never conclusively interpreted Section 3 of the amendment, which delineates that individuals who previously pledged support to the Constitution but engaged in insurrection or provided aid to enemies shall be disqualified from federal or state offices. Yet, Congress retains the power to remove such disqualifications by a two-thirds vote in each house.
More Read
The court agreed to hear a case challenging a Colorado law that bars individuals convicted of involvement in a rebellion or insurrection against the U.S. from holding state office. The case, brought forth by three Colorado residents, stems from their exclusion from running for office due to guilty pleas related to the 2014 Cliven Bundy rancher standoff against federal agents in Nevada.
Arguing that the Colorado law infringes on their First Amendment rights and that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply since they didn’t take an oath as federal or state officials, the plaintiffs contested the law. Despite their claims, the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the law, affirming their involvement in insurrection against the U.S. and rejecting the necessity for an oath for the 14th Amendment’s enforcement.
The court referenced a federal district court ruling in Washington, D.C., which deemed Trump responsible for inciting insurrection against the U.S. during the January 6 riot. Judge Sarah Wallace’s December 6, 2021 ruling in a civil lawsuit brought by Democratic lawmakers against Trump labeled his actions as falling within the ambit of “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” under the 14th Amendment.
Judge Wallace emphasized that Trump’s actions didn’t merit First Amendment protection but constituted an abuse of presidential power jeopardizing the constitutional order. Legal experts and anti-Trump activists hailed this ruling as having substantial implications for Trump’s political and legal standing.
Former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner, speaking on MSNBC on the riot’s anniversary, highlighted the significance of Judge Wallace’s ruling, calling it a “masterpiece of legal analysis and factual findings.” He stressed the appellate courts’ traditional deference to trial court factual findings, underscoring the extensive trial process where Trump’s lawyers defended his interests.
Kirschner emphasized that the Supreme Court faces a challenge in overturning Judge Wallace’s factual findings without substantial grounds, potentially rewriting longstanding appellate review rules. He urged considering the 14th Amendment’s historical intent to prevent post-Civil War Confederates from regaining power and asserted Trump’s actions aligned with the amendment’s purpose.
In his analysis, Kirschner emphasized the Supreme Court’s straightforward path to uphold the Colorado law and disqualify Trump from holding office under the 14th Amendment, cautioning against undermining the Constitution and the rule of law if they fail to do so.
