Multiple Paths to a Favorable Ruling Emerge
The Case: Examining the 14th Amendment
After hearing arguments in the case of President Trump’s eligibility for the 2024 ballot, the Supreme Court seems poised to rule in his favor. The crux of the issue lies with the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former Confederates from regaining power. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in December that Trump’s involvement in the events of January 6, 2021, amounted to an “insurrection,” rendering him ineligible for office. However, the U.S. Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism towards this ruling.
Questioning State Authority
One argument gaining support among the justices questions the power of individual states to make such determinations. Justice Elena Kagan observed that allowing a single state, like Colorado, to decide who can appear on the national ballot seems extraordinary. The 14th Amendment was designed to strip power from the states, not grant them authority to make these decisions. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. raised concerns about a potential partisan ripple effect, where conservative states could disqualify Democratic candidates, such as President Biden, from running.
Must Congress Pass a Law?
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh referenced a 1869 ruling by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, which stated that disqualification of insurrectionists required specific legislation from Congress. Although this ruling is not binding, Kavanaugh argued it offers insight into the original intent of the 14th Amendment. While the 1870 law implementing this process has since been repealed, the current divided Congress is unlikely to pass a new law. A ruling on these grounds could effectively end the case, but it leaves open the question of potential charges under existing insurrection laws for Trump.
A Potential Trump Exception
Trump’s lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell, argued for a ruling that Trump was never an “officer of the United States,” thus exempting him from the 14th Amendment’s ban. Mitchell claimed that the amendment’s language refers only to appointed officials, not elected officials like the president. However, this argument faced opposition from both legal scholars and some justices who viewed it as a selective interpretation. Justice Sonia Sotomayor remarked that it seemed like a “gerrymandered rule” that solely benefits Trump. Mitchell acknowledged the uniqueness of Trump’s situation but maintained that the language of the amendment supports his claim.
Is the Presidency Covered?
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised the question of whether the presidency is included among the offices barred for insurrectionists. The language of the 14th Amendment specifically lists senator, representative, and member of the electoral college, but omits any mention of the president. Jackson suggested that the omission may be intentional, with the focus primarily on preventing former Confederates from holding congressional and state offices. This ambiguity could allow voters to make their own decisions regarding a candidate’s eligibility.
Timing and Unanimity
The justices will convene to discuss the case and determine which argument to consolidate behind. Time is of the essence, as the presidential campaign is already underway. If the court can reach a unanimous ruling, it may help temper the partisan tensions of this heated election year.
