The Supreme Court is set to consider whether Donald Trump should be barred from running for president and whether his name can be left off the 2024 ballot in Colorado.
Trump was declared ineligible to appear on the Colorado ballot on December 19 and his appeal The hearing against the state Supreme Court decision will be heard on 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-era rule states that people who participate in an insurrection are ineligible for office.
Supreme Court justices will hear arguments from both sides on whether Trump can be kept out of the polls.
The highest court could even rule on whether the Jan. 6 riot was an insurrection when a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol to protest the election in which Joe Biden defeated Trump in 2020.
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to consider whether Donald Trump should be barred from running for president and appearing on Colorado’s 2024 ballot.
Supreme Court justices (pictured) will hear arguments from both sides on whether Trump is ineligible to be president again and whether he can be left off the ballot.
They could even govern 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 Colorado ballot and whether similar attempts in other states are valid.
The Republican politician, 77, is the likely favorite to challenge Biden, 81, in the upcoming general presidential election in November.
His case is moving much faster than usual in the argument schedule, and there is pressure to reach a decision before March 5, when voters in 15 states, including Colorado, will cast ballots in the Republican primaries.
Trump’s name is currently on the Colorado ballot ahead of any Supreme Court. Maine also considered removing Trump from its ballot, but that measure was also put on hold.
It is based on a Civil War-era constitutional amendment that bars anyone who has “participated in an insurrection or rebellion” from holding federal office, but this has never been used to disqualify a presidential candidate.
The 14th Amendment has been around since 1868, but the Supreme Court had never before considered Section 3, known as the insurrection clause.
Both sides point to historical clues to argue their interpretation of the provision, including how it was interpreted at the time of its adoption.
The lawyers will reference arguments made 150 years ago by Salmon Chase, a member of Abraham Lincoln’s cabinet whom Lincoln appointed to the Supreme Court in 1864.
Chase, in December 1868, ruled on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which had not been enacted until July of that year.
Section 3 was designed after the Civil War to prevent Confederates from being elected.
‘No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or an elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, who… has participated in, or given aid to, an insurrection or rebellion against the same or comfort his enemies,’ he says.
Chase ruled that Jefferson Davis, the defeated Confederate president, should not face trial for treason.
He argued that Section 3, which prevents Davis from holding office, was a form of punishment and therefore prohibited any further criminal proceedings.
At the time, Chase, a former Republican governor of Ohio, was considering running for president as a Democrat and hoped to appeal to Davis’ Democratic colleagues.
The Republican politician, 77, is the likely favorite to challenge Joe Biden, 81, in the upcoming presidential election in November.
His case is moving much faster than usual in scheduling arguments and there is pressure to reach a Supreme Court decision by March 5.
The 14th Amendment has been around since 1868, but the Supreme Court had never before considered Section 3, known as the insurrection clause. In the photo, January 6 riots at the Capitol.
A year later, Chase issued a contrary decision, when faced with the Section 3 issue again.
He was asked to rule whether a black man, Caesar Griffin, should have his conviction for “shooting with intent to kill” overturned because the judge who presided 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 Confederate trials.
Trump’s lawyers now argue that the Griffin case shows that a state cannot use Section 3 as a means to disqualify someone.
In their brief, they argue that the Griffin case helps confirm that “Congressional enforcement legislation is the exclusive means of enforcing Section 3.”
The argument is one of several they make to say the Colorado Supreme Court overstepped its bounds. They claim that Trump’s conduct at the time of 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 a Republican governor of Ohio before being appointed to Lincoln’s cabinet. Lincoln later appointed him to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court could also be ruling on another Trump case after a federal appeals court rejected his claim to presidential immunity.
It ruled that he could be prosecuted on charges related to conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election.
“We are equally aware of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions the law requires us to make,” the justices said.
While Trump’s lawyers claimed he had “unconstitutionally disenfranchised millions of voters in Colorado” and could generate millions more in the United States.
The former president’s claims have also been backed by the legal chiefs of 27 states.
They said Colorado’s ruling would lead to “widespread chaos.” The attorneys general wrote: ‘Most obviously, it creates confusion in an election cycle that is just weeks away.
“Beyond that, it disrupts the respective roles of Congress, the States and the courts.”
Trump is not expected to attend the hearing to hear arguments on Thursday.
The Supreme Court could also rule on another Trump case after a federal appeals court rejected his claim to presidential immunity.
He decided that he could be prosecuted on charges related to conspiracy to overturn the 2020 elections. There is until Monday to get the Supreme Court to suspend this ruling.