“Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Trump’s Eligibility for Colorado Primary Ballot”

Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Trump’s Eligibility for Colorado Primary Ballot

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a significant case regarding the eligibility of former President Donald Trump to appear on Colorado’s primary ballot. The case revolves around Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits officials who have engaged in insurrection from serving in government. A group of voters in Colorado challenged Trump’s eligibility for office based on his actions surrounding the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in December that Section 3 rendered Trump ineligible for office, prompting Trump to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

During the oral arguments, lawyers for both sides and the Colorado secretary of state presented their positions to the justices. Chief Justice John Roberts expressed skepticism towards Colorado’s interpretation of Section 3, calling it “ahistorical.” He argued that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to restrict state power, not grant it authority over the presidential election process. Roberts also raised concerns that upholding Colorado’s position would lead to a partisan tit-for-tat, with states disqualifying candidates from opposing parties and potentially deciding the presidential election.

The discussion during the oral arguments focused less on the events of January 6 and whether Trump incited the mob, and more on the interpretation of Section 3 itself. Jonathan Mitchell, a lawyer representing Trump, argued that the events of January 6 did not qualify as an insurrection but rather a riot. He pointed out that Congress has already enacted the Insurrection Act, which can be used to prohibit insurrectionists from holding office. However, Trump is not charged with violating the Insurrection Act in his criminal prosecution.

Trump’s lawyers contended that Section 3 does not apply to him as a former president or to the office of the presidency. They argued that neither the president nor presidency is covered by the phrases “office… under the United States” and “officer of the United States” in the clause. They also highlighted that the term “president” is not explicitly mentioned in Section 3. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned why the drafters of Section 3 did not include the word “president” in the enumerated list. She suggested that the history of the 14th Amendment indicates that the provision was primarily concerned with preventing former Confederates from returning to power in state-level elections.

The justices repeatedly referred to a 155-year-old case involving Chief Justice Salmon Chase to determine whether Section 3 is self-executing or requires legislation from Congress to be enforced. Trump’s lawyers cited Chase’s opinion, which concluded that Section 3 was not self-executing and needed an act of Congress for enforcement. However, Chase’s opinion is not Supreme Court precedent, and he reached a different conclusion in another case involving Jefferson Davis, the former president of the Confederacy. Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that Chase’s opinion in the earlier case was still relevant for determining the original meaning of Section 3.

Justice Elena Kagan raised concerns about states having the power to decide who is eligible for the presidency. She emphasized that certain national questions should be addressed through federal means, rather than allowing a single state to determine the outcome of the presidential election. Kagan referenced a previous case that ruled against an Ohio filing deadline for independent candidates, highlighting the pervasive national interest in the selection of candidates for national office. She questioned why the same principle should not apply in the Trump case.

The oral arguments revealed a range of perspectives among the justices, with some expressing skepticism towards Colorado’s interpretation of Section 3 and others raising concerns about states having the power to decide presidential eligibility. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will have significant implications for future interpretations of Section 3 and its application to presidential candidates.