**Title:** Legal Battle Over Trump’s Candidacy Shapes Up in U.S. Supreme Court
WASHINGTON (AP) — A former federal prosecutor and legal analyst, Glenn Kirschner, anticipates an arduous legal confrontation in the U.S. Supreme Court, dominated by a conservative majority.
Kirschner, as reported by Newsweek on Monday, December 25, 2023, foresees a potential challenge to a decision from Colorado that bars former President Donald Trump from appearing on the state’s primary ballot.
More Read
The Colorado Supreme Court’s divided 4-3 ruling was rooted in a provision within the 14th Amendment dating back to the Civil War era.
This clause stipulates that individuals who have pledged allegiance to the Constitution should be ineligible for future office if they partake in an “insurrection.”
Citing Trump’s actions, notably during the January 6, 2021, Capitol riots, the Colorado court deemed his conduct tantamount to inciting insurrection.
The court substantiated its decision by referencing allegations that Trump had spurred the Capitol breach by disseminating unsubstantiated claims of electoral malpractice.
Kirschner, a former U.S. attorney and vocal critic of Trump, lauded the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling, hailing it as a “remarkable gift for our democracy.”
However, he acknowledges the likelihood of the U.S. Supreme Court, entrenched with a conservative majority, agreeing to entertain Trump’s appeal.
Nonetheless, Kirschner remains skeptical that the highest judicial body in the nation will rule favorably for the former president.
Highlighting the factual determinations established by the Colorado courts, involving witness testimonies and a trial process, he contends that even the Supreme Court is unlikely to overturn these findings on appeal.
Kirschner indicated that the only potential flexibility for the Supreme Court might be to determine that a president engaged in insurrection should not necessarily be disqualified from seeking the highest office.
Trump is currently embroiled in a lawsuit initiated by the House of Representatives over his role in inciting the violent mob that stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
The lawsuit accuses Trump of violating the 14th Amendment, which prohibits individuals engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from holding public office.
Trump’s legal team contends that he holds immunity from civil liability, asserting that he was acting in his capacity as head of state during his address to the crowd.
Dismissing this defense as “absurd,” Kirschner expresses confidence that the Supreme Court will not rule in favor of Trump being exempt from legal accountability.
Trump maintains that his speech was protected by the First Amendment and denies any intention to incite violence or harm.
He denounces the House’s lawsuit as politically motivated, aiming to thwart his potential candidacy in the 2024 presidential election.
The resolution of this legal saga bears immense significance for Trump’s political prospects and the broader interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause.
A favorable outcome for the House could bar Trump from holding federal office in the future, effectively concluding his political career.
Conversely, a victory for Trump could serve as validation for his actions and bolster his prospective return to the political arena.
This legal spectacle intensifies the already charged atmosphere surrounding Trump’s post-presidential activities and aspirations for the 2024 election.
Despite not conceding defeat to President Joe Biden, Trump continues to propagate unfounded claims of election fraud.
He has hinted at a potential presidential run in 2024, despite confronting multiple criminal investigations and lawsuits. His steadfast supporters remain loyal, with some issuing threats of violence if Trump is not reinstated.
The lawsuit’s outcome could either stoke or temper the fervor of his supporters and detractors alike.
