The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against Donald Trump's eligibility to run for president in a landmark case that could boost the former president's re-election campaign or remove him from the list of candidates for the upcoming November election. A hearing regarding the matter has begun.
The lawsuit, brought by anti-Trump voters, asks whether a Colorado court was correct in ruling that Trump violated the 14th Amendment during the 2020 campaign, and whether Trump was correct in violating the 14th Amendment. A judge will decide whether he can be barred from running for office. For office use. This is part of a series of legal challenges facing President Trump ahead of the election, including four criminal charges.
Here's what's important to know about Thursday's proceedings:
What does Trump allege did in this incident?
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits persons who have “participated in rebellion or insurrection” against the states from holding federal office. Trump's challengers argue that his role in the January 6, 2021, attack on Congress means he should be barred from holding office.
So far, two U.S. states, Colorado and Maine, have invoked the provision and declared Mr. Trump ineligible to run in their territories, even as their primaries heat up. Trump is leading the Republican race for the White House.
Who brought this case and how did it get to the Supreme Court?
A group of Colorado voters filed the lawsuit in August 2023. A Colorado district court rejected an attempt to bar Mr. Trump from the election, but the Colorado Supreme Court ruled on appeal in December that Mr. Trump had actually violated the Third Amendment. This is the first judgment of its kind. Maine election officials issued a similar ruling.
The Trump campaign appealed Colorado's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. The Colorado Supreme Court and the state of Maine withheld their decisions until the Supreme Court rules on the case.
The court's decision could have national implications, and if the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling is upheld, other states could also remove Trump from their votes.
What was Trump's defense?
In written arguments in court, the Trump campaign argued that the insurrection clause cannot be invoked unless Congress enacts specific legislation related to it.
To support this argument, the research team cited a very old precedent: the Griffin case. In an 1869 case, California Chief Justice Salmon Chase ruled that the insurrection prohibition was not “self-enforcing” and could not be enforced without Congress acting first.
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh highlighted the case in particular during an exchange with President Trump's opponents, noting how close the case was to enacting a constitutional amendment.
“This is by the chief justice of the United States one year after the 14th Amendment,” Kavanaugh said, referring to Judge Chase. “That seems to me to be very proof of what the meaning and understanding of that elusive language is.”
Trump's lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell, also argued in court that Trump had no deliberate plan to overthrow the government, adding that the insurrection required a “coordinated and coordinated effort.” Mitchell said the Jan. 6 march on the U.S. Capitol was an “insurrection.”
What did the Supreme Court justices say?
Both liberal and conservative Supreme Court justices attacked lawyers representing Mr. Trump's challengers with questions that suggested the court might rule in favor of Mr. Trump. The debate did not focus on whether President Trump violated the Insurrection Clause, but rather on narrower provisions, such as who the clause covers.
The justices, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, asked whether the insurrection clause was intended to apply to former U.S. presidents and whether the U.S. Congress could invoke it without first passing legislation. I questioned whether.
The justices also questioned whether the court's exclusion of candidates would affect voters' rights and, by extension, American democracy itself. If Trump is removed from the vote in Colorado, it could set a precedent and allow other states to exclude presidential candidates from future elections, leaving the choice of who becomes president to a “few states.” They said it would happen.
The Supreme Court is contesting whether the Colorado court's decision was correct, but a final ruling against Trump would open the door for other states to bar Trump from their votes. Some experts say the decision would set a binding precedent in states where laws require that candidates on the ballot must be eligible for the post they are running for. .
“Your position has the effect of significantly disenfranchising voters,” conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh told the lawyers. “If you agree, what about the principles behind democracy?”
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan questioned states' authority to decide candidates for national elections.
“Why should a single nation have the ability to make this decision for the nation as a whole, not just its own citizens?” Kagan asked.
What happens next?
The Supreme Court typically takes several months to issue a decision, but the court is expected to rule quickly in this case. Experts say an opinion is likely to be issued in the coming weeks, before Super Tuesday on March 5, when most states, including Maine, Colorado and 13 other states, hold primaries.
President Trump told reporters after the hearing that the case was “a great thing in many ways,” but he expressed dissatisfaction with the lawsuit being filed at all.
President Trump is on track to hit the Republican ticket regardless of whether these two states are on the ballot and despite facing numerous legal challenges heading into the election. .
Experts say Trump has used his appearance in court to infuriate his supporters and build momentum for his campaign ahead of the Nov. 5 vote.
