Supreme Court Skeptical of Efforts to Remove Trump from 2024 Ballot
The Supreme Court of the United States expressed skepticism on Thursday regarding the attempts to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot. During a two-hour argument, justices from both conservative and liberal backgrounds raised questions about whether Trump can be disqualified from running for president again due to his actions to overturn the results of the 2020 election, culminating in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
The main concern raised was whether Congress must take action before states can invoke a constitutional provision that was established after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again. Additionally, there were discussions about whether this provision applies to the presidency itself.
Justice Elena Kagan, among others, questioned why a single state should have the authority to decide who can become president. However, eight out of the nine justices appeared open to considering the arguments put forth by Jonathan Mitchell, Trump’s lawyer at the Supreme Court. If the court finds just one of these arguments persuasive, Trump could potentially win his case. Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed inclined to uphold the ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court, which found that Trump engaged in insurrection and is therefore ineligible to run for president.
Interestingly, during the proceedings, there was minimal discussion about whether Trump actually participated in the insurrection that followed the 2020 election. Jason Murray, representing the voters who sued to remove Trump from the Colorado ballot, emphasized that Trump incited the Capitol attack to prevent a peaceful transfer of power, something that had never occurred in history.
Mitchell argued that the Capitol riot did not constitute an insurrection and, even if it did, Trump was not involved. This case marks the first time that the justices are considering Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, presenting them with a political dispute that they typically try to avoid arbitrating.
Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern that ruling against Trump could set a precedent for disqualifying other candidates, which could lead to successful efforts in the future. Trump’s lawyers argue that the amendment cannot be used to prevent him from appearing on the ballot for several reasons. Firstly, they claim that the events of January 6 were not an insurrection, and even if they were, Trump was not involved. They also argue that the wording of the amendment excludes the presidency and presidential candidates. Furthermore, they contend that Congress must pass legislation to enforce Section 3, even if their previous arguments are proven incorrect.
On the other hand, lawyers representing Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump’s name from the Colorado ballot assert that there is substantial evidence that the events of January 6 constituted an insurrection and that Trump played a role in inciting it. They argue that it would be absurd to exclude the presidency from Section 3 or to grant Trump an exemption. According to them, enabling legislation is unnecessary for this provision. A definitive ruling in favor of Trump would effectively put an end to efforts in Colorado, Maine, and other states to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.
If the Colorado decision is upheld, it would amount to a declaration by the Supreme Court that Trump engaged in insurrection and is therefore barred by the 14th Amendment from holding any public office. This would allow states to exclude him from their ballots and pose a significant threat to his campaign. However, the justices could also opt for a less decisive outcome, knowing that this issue may return to them in the future, possibly after the general election in November, potentially causing a constitutional crisis.
In a separate appeal to state court, Trump is also challenging a ruling by Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, who declared him ineligible to appear on the state’s ballot due to his involvement in the Capitol attack. Both the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling and the Maine secretary of state’s decision are currently on hold until the appeals process is completed.
The Supreme Court has indicated that it will expedite its decision-making process, significantly reducing the time for written briefings and courtroom arguments. People began lining up outside the court as early as Wednesday, hoping to secure one of the limited public seats available. Susan Acker from Cincinnati, Ohio, who was waiting in line with two friends, expressed her eagerness to witness this landmark decision, comparing it to being “in the room where it happened,” referencing the musical “Hamilton.”
Although the issues surrounding this case are relatively new, Trump is no stranger to the Supreme Court, with three of the current justices having been appointed by him during his presidency. The court has dealt with several Trump-related cases in recent years, refusing to endorse his claims of election fraud in 2020 and denying his request to withhold tax records from Congress and New York prosecutors. Even before the court concludes its decision on this case, it is expected to receive another appeal from Trump, who will likely seek an emergency order to halt his election subversion trial so that he can challenge lower-court rulings that deny him immunity from criminal charges.
In April, the court will also hear an appeal from one of the over 1,200 individuals charged in connection with the Capitol riot. This case has the potential to disrupt more than 300 prosecutions brought by the authorities, including Trump himself. The Supreme Court last played such a central role in presidential politics in its 5-4 decision that ultimately favored George W. Bush and effectively ended the disputed 2000 election.
Justice Clarence Thomas is the only current member of the court who also participated in Bush v. Gore. Despite calls from some Democratic lawmakers for his recusal due to his wife’s support for Trump’s bid to overturn the 2020 election results and her attendance at the rally preceding the Capitol attack, Thomas has chosen not to step aside from this case.
