Supreme Court to weigh whether Trump should stay on Colorado ballot for 2024 election – and could even rule if January 6 was an insurrection when a mob stormed the Capitol to protest the results
The Supreme Court will consider whether Donald Trump should be barred from running for president and whether his name can be omitted from the 2024 ballot in Colorado.
Trump was declared ineligible to appear on the Dec. 19 Colorado ballot and his appeal against the state Supreme Court’s 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 off the ballot.
The high court may even rule if the January 6 riot was an insurrection when a crowd stormed the US Capitol to protest the election that saw Joe Biden beat Trump in 2020.
The US Supreme Court will consider whether Donald Trump should be banned from running for president and appearing on the Colorado ballot in 2024.
Supreme Court justices (pictured) will hear arguments from both sides on whether Trump is ineligible to be president again and can be kept off the ballot
They might even rule if the January 6th riot was a riot when a crowd stormed the US Capitol to protest the election
The Supreme Court will decide whether Trump should be removed from the Colorado ballot and whether similar efforts in other states are valid.
The Republican politician (77) is the likely front-runner to challenge Biden (81) in the upcoming general presidential election in November.
His case is moving much faster than usual in scheduling arguments and there is pressure for a decision to be made before March 5. That’s when voters in 15 states, including Colorado, cast their ballots in the Republican primary.
Trump’s name is currently on the Colorado ballot before any Supreme Court. Maine also looked at removing Trump from its ballot, but that move was also put on hold.
It is based on a Civil War Constitutional amendment that bars anyone who has been “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding federal office, but it has never been used to disqualify a candidate for president.
The 14th Amendment has existed since 1868, but the Supreme Court has never before considered Article 3, known as the Insurrection Clause.
Both sides point to historical clues to argue for their reading of the provision, including how it was interpreted at the time of its passage.
The lawyers will refer to 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 ruled in December 1868 on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment – which was not put into effect until July of that year.
Section 3 was designed in the aftermath of the Civil War to prevent Confederates from being elected.
‘No person shall be a senator or representative in congress, or elect president and vice president, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, who … has been engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same , or aid or comfort is given to its enemies,’ it reads.
Chase ruled that Jefferson Davis, the defeated Confederate president, should not be prosecuted for treason.
He argued that Article 3 – barring Davis from holding office – was a form of punishment, and therefore barred any additional criminal prosecution.
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 the likely front-runner 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 for a Supreme Court decision to be made before March 5
The 14th Amendment has existed since 1868, but the Supreme Court has never before considered Article 3, known as the Insurrection Clause. In the photo January 6 riot on the Capitol
A year later, Chase issued an opposing decision when again faced with the Section 3 question.
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 presiding over his case was a Confederate.
In the Griffin case, Chase ruled that Congress should weigh in—mainly because he feared the precedent that would be set by overturning all Confederate rulings.
Trump’s lawyers now argue that the Griffin case shows that a state cannot use Article 3 as a way to disqualify someone.
In their brief, they argue that the Griffin case helps to confirm “congressional enforcement legislation as the exclusive means of enforcing Article 3.”
The argument is one of several they offer to say the Colorado Supreme Court overstepped the mark. They claim Trump’s actions at the time of January 6 did not amount to rebellion.
Colorado’s Supreme Court acknowledged that it was aware of the scope of its December ruling.
Salmon Chase served as Republican governor of Ohio before being appointed to Lincoln’s cabinet. Lincoln then appointed him to the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court may also rule on another Trump case after a federal appeals court rejected his claim of presidential immunity
It ruled that he could be prosecuted on charges related to conspiracy to subvert the 2020 elections
“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 commands,” the judges said.
While Trump’s lawyers claimed it “unconstitutionally disenfranchised millions of voters in Colorado” and could lead to millions more in the US.
The former president’s claims were also supported by the chief legal officers of 27 states.
They said the Colorado decision would lead to “widespread chaos.” The attorney general wrote: ‘It is clear that this is causing confusion in an election cycle that is only weeks away.
“Besides, it upsets the respective roles of Congress, the States and the courts.”
Trump is not expected to attend Thursday’s hearing to hear the arguments.
The high court could also rule on another Trump case after a federal appeals court rejected his claim of presidential immunity.
It ruled that he could be prosecuted on charges related to conspiracy to subvert the 2020 elections. There is a deadline of Monday to get the Supreme Court to put this ruling on hold.