The Supreme Court will consider whether Donald Trump should be banned from running for president and whether his name can be omitted from Colorado’s 2024 ballot.
Trump was ineligible to appear on the ballot in Colorado on December 19 and his appeal the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision will be heard Thursday.
The decision marked the first time in history that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was used to disqualify a presidential candidate. The Civil War rule states that people who participate in an uprising are not eligible to run for office.
The Supreme Court justices will hear arguments from both sides on whether Trump can be kept off the ballot.
The Supreme Court could even rule on whether the Jan. 6 riot was an insurrection, when a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol to protest the 2020 election that saw Joe Biden defeat Trump.
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether to ban Donald Trump from running for president and appearing on the ballot in Colorado in 2024
Supreme Court justices (pictured) will hear arguments from both sides on whether Trump is no longer eligible to become president and can be kept off the ballot
They could govern even if the Jan. 6 riot was an insurrection, when a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol to protest the election.
The Supreme Court will decide whether Trump should be removed from the ballot in Colorado and whether similar efforts are valid in other states.
The Republican politician, 77, is likely the frontrunner to challenge Biden, 81, in the upcoming general presidential election in November.
His case is moving much faster than normal in terms of scheduling arguments and there is pressure for a decision before March 5. This is when voters in 15 states, including Colorado, cast their ballots during the Republican primaries.
Trump’s name is currently on the ballot in Colorado ahead of a Supreme Court hearing. Maine has also looked at removing Trump from the ballot, but that move has also been paused.
It is based on a Civil War-era constitutional amendment that bars anyone “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding federal office, but this has never been used to disqualify a candidate for president.
The 14th Amendment has been around since 1868, but the Supreme Court has never before considered Section 3, known as the Rebellion Clause.
Both sides point to historical evidence to argue their reading of the provision, including how it was interpreted at the time it was adopted.
The lawyers will point to arguments made 150 years ago by Salmon Chase, a member of Abraham Lincoln’s Cabinet who was appointed to the Supreme Court by Lincoln in 1864.
Chase ruled in December 1868 on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which had not gone into effect until July of that year.
Section 3 was designed in the aftermath of the Civil War to prevent the Confederates from being elected.
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or an elector of the President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, who… shall have been engaged in insurrection or rebellion thereunder , or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,” it reads.
Chase ruled that Jefferson Davis, the defeated Confederate president, should not be prosecuted for treason.
He argued that Section 3 – blocking Davis from holding office – was a form of punishment and therefore precluded any additional criminal charges.
At the time, Chase, formerly the Republican governor of Ohio, was toying with running for president as a Democrat, hoping to appeal to Davis’ Democratic colleagues.
The Republican politician, 77, is likely the frontrunner to challenge Joe Biden, 81, in the upcoming presidential elections in November
His case is moving much faster than normal in terms of scheduling of arguments and there is pressure for a Supreme Court ruling before March 5.
The 14th Amendment has been around since 1868, but the Supreme Court has never before considered Section 3, known as the Rebellion Clause. Pictured: January 6 riot at the Capitol
A year later, Chase made a counter decision when confronted with the Section 3 issue again.
He was asked to decide whether the conviction of a black man, Caesar Griffin, for “shooting with intent to kill” should be overturned because the judge presiding over his case was a Confederate.
In the Griffin case, Chase ruled that Congress must intervene—largely because he feared the precedent that would be set by nullifying all of the Confederacy’s rulings.
Trump’s lawyers now argue that the Griffin case shows that a state cannot use Section 3 as a tool to disqualify someone.
In their letter, they argue that the Griffin case helps establish “congressional law enforcement as the exclusive means of enforcing Section 3.”
The argument is one of many they’re making to say the Colorado Supreme Court overstepped its mark. They argue that Trump’s conduct on January 6 did not amount to an insurrection.
The Colorado Supreme Court acknowledged that it was aware of the magnitude of its December ruling.
Salmon Chase was Republican governor of Ohio before being appointed to Lincoln’s cabinet. Lincoln subsequently appointed him to the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court could also rule on another Trump case after a federal appeals court rejected his claim for presidential immunity
It ruled that he could be prosecuted on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election
“We are also aware of our solemn obligation to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being influenced by public reactions to the decisions that the law requires us to make,” the judges said.
While Trump’s lawyers argued it had “unconstitutionally disenfranchised millions of Colorado voters” and could lead to millions more in the US.
The former president’s claims are also supported by the top legal officials of 27 states.
They said the ruling in Colorado would lead to “widespread chaos.” The attorneys general wrote: “Clearly this creates confusion in an election cycle that is just weeks away.
“Furthermore, it distorts the respective roles of Congress, the States and the courts.”
Trump is not expected to attend Thursday’s hearing to hear arguments.
The Supreme Court could also rule on another Trump case after a federal appeals court rejected his claim for presidential immunity.
It ruled that he could be prosecuted on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. There is a deadline of Monday to get the Supreme Court to pause this ruling.