U.S. Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments Thursday in a landmark case over whether former President Donald Trump should be barred from the 2024 presidential ballot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A majority of the justices, including liberal members of the court, expressed skepticism about a ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court that said Trump, the GOP presidential frontrunner, is disqualified from appearing on the state\u2019s presidential primary ballot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A main point of skepticism that emerged through the justices\u2019 exchanges with attorneys for Trump and the plaintiffs was whether states have the authority to disqualify federal candidates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Other apparent objections to the Colorado decision concerned whether the constitutional provision at issue applies to the president, who can enforce it, the implications for democracy if a candidate can be barred from the ballot, the \u201cdisuniformity\u201d that would result if states disqualified candidates using different standards, and the definition of \u201cinsurrection.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The hearing was over a Colorado Supreme Court ruling<\/a> from December that found Trump to be disqualified from holding the office and ordered Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold not to include Trump\u2019s name on the Colorado presidential primary ballot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The ruling came in response to a lawsuit<\/a> that was filed in state district court in September by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington on behalf of six Colorado voters, who argued Trump is disqualified from office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Section 3, ratified after the Civil War, prohibits someone who took an oath to support the Constitution and then \u201cengaged in insurrection\u201d from holding office again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDonald Trump tried to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election,\u201d the lawsuit said. \u201cHis efforts culminated on January 6, 2021, when he incited, exacerbated, and otherwise engaged in a violent insurrection at the United States Capitol by a mob who believed they were following his orders, and refused to protect the Capitol or call off the mob for nearly three hours as the attack unfolded.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The district court judge, relying on a five-day evidentiary hearing with expert testimony and extensive briefs, determined<\/a> that Trump had engaged in insurrection but that Section 3 doesn\u2019t apply to presidents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Colorado Supreme Court in a 4-3 ruling<\/a> affirmed the district court\u2019s finding that Trump engaged in insurrection but, in a reversal of the district court\u2019s order, also concluded that Section 3 applies to presidents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in taking the case, called Trump v. Anderson, framed the scope of its review in broad terms: \u201cDid the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Its answer to that question will have profound implications throughout the country that go beyond this year\u2019s election. Efforts to disqualify Trump from the ballot have emerged in most states<\/a>, and he has already been disqualified in Maine<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Jonathan Mitchell, Trump\u2019s attorney, began the hearing Thursday by saying, \u201cThe Colorado Supreme Court\u2019s decision is wrong and should be reversed for numerous independent reasons.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mitchell argued that Section 3 didn\u2019t apply to Trump \u201cbecause the president is not an officer of the United States as that term is used throughout the Constitution.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n He also argued that a state barring a federal candidate from the ballot before Congress has the opportunity to relieve the candidate of Section 3 disqualification, as the provision allows for, amounts to an improper alteration of constitutional qualifications for federal office.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cA state cannot exclude any candidate for federal office from the ballot on account of Section 3,\u201d Mitchell said, adding later, \u201cA state is not allowed to implement or enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment unless and until Congress enacts implementing legislation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a sign of hostility to the plaintiffs\u2019 case from the liberal side of the court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that Section 3 appeared to exempt the office of the president from the positions an insurrectionist is barred from holding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe word \u2018president\u2019 or \u2018vice president\u2019 does not appear specifically on that list,\u201d she said during an exchange with Mitchell.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mitchell agreed, and he also argued that an insurrectionist president, unlike lower office-holders who have engaged in insurrection, is not covered by Section 3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The plaintiffs\u2019 attorney, Jason Murray, tried to persuade the justices that Section 3 must be enforced as a safeguard against the kind of anti-constitutional violence that occurred on Jan. 6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cFor the first time in history, the attack was incited by a sitting president of the United States to disrupt the peaceful transfer of presidential power. By engaging in insurrection against the Constitution, President Trump disqualified himself from public office,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But many of the justices seemed reluctant to affirm that conclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Brett Kavanaugh, echoing several colleagues, suggested Congress, not individual states, has the primary role in stating how Section 3 should be enforced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cYou look at Section 3, the term \u2018insurrection\u2019 jumps out and the questions are, what does that mean? How do you define it? Who decides whether someone is engaged in it?\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Much of the discussion hinged on the so-called Griffin\u2019s case ruling from 1869, in which Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, presiding as a circuit justice, ruled that Section 3 required congressional action to be operative. Trump\u2019s legal team and several justices expressed approval of the ruling. Many contemporary legal scholars dismiss the ruling<\/a> as misguided.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dave Williams, the chair of the Colorado Republican Party, was present in the courtroom and told Newsline afterward that he was confident the court would rule in Trump\u2019s favor, regardless of the grounds on which it bases its decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI guess I don\u2019t have a specific way for them to resolve it,\u201d Williams said. \u201cUltimately my interest is in ensuring people can vote for Donald Trump. However they get there makes no difference to me.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Norma Anderson, the lead plaintiff in the Colorado case and a former Republican Colorado House speaker, said in an interview after the hearing that the justices were \u201chard to read.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI think it\u2019s 50-50,\u201d Anderson said. \u201cThey were very inquisitive. I think what they were trying to figure out is, \u2018Is this really my job to do?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n