Supreme Court Case Could Determine Trump’s Eligibility for 2024 Presidential Race
In a historic and unprecedented legal battle, the Supreme Court is set to hear a case that could have far-reaching implications for the 2024 presidential race. The dispute revolves around whether former President Donald Trump is eligible for a second term in office due to his involvement in the January 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol. A decision against Trump could disrupt his bid for re-election and have significant consequences for the primary and general election ballots across all 50 states.
At the heart of the case is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, also known as the insurrection clause. This seldom-used provision, passed in 1868 to prevent former Confederates from holding public office, has never before been used to disqualify a presidential candidate. However, in December, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s conduct connected to the events of January 6 made him ineligible for the presidency, leading to his exclusion from the state’s GOP presidential primary ballot.
This landmark decision by the Colorado Supreme Court set the stage for the current high-stakes showdown before the Supreme Court itself, which includes three justices appointed by Trump. The case, formally known as Trump v. Anderson, raises a number of untested legal questions and places the highest court in the land in the middle of a politically charged dispute just as voters are preparing to cast their ballots for the 2024 presidential election.
The case was brought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington on behalf of four Republican and two unaffiliated voters in Colorado. They argued that Trump’s involvement in inciting the January 6 attack qualifies as an act of insurrection, rendering him ineligible for a second term. District Judge Sarah B. Wallace ruled in favor of the voters, determining that Trump had engaged in insurrection through incitement. However, she also concluded that Section 3 does not apply to the presidency, allowing Trump to remain on the Colorado primary ballot.
Both the Colorado voters and Trump appealed to the state supreme court, which reversed the district court’s decision and declared Trump ineligible for the White House. Trump then appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to consider whether the Colorado Supreme Court had erred.
The central arguments put forth by Trump’s legal team include whether Section 3 applies to a former president, whether Trump engaged in insurrection, and whether state and federal courts can enforce Section 3 without legislation from Congress. They also argue that Section 3 prohibits an individual from holding office rather than running as a candidate or winning election. Therefore, they contend that Trump should not be denied access to the ballot.
On the other hand, the voters argue that Trump’s actions on January 6 constitute insurrection and disqualify him from holding office again. They emphasize that it is not unprecedented for candidates to face limitations on their eligibility for the presidency, citing age and citizenship requirements as examples.
If the Supreme Court sides with Trump on any of these issues, he will remain on the primary and general election ballots for the 2024 presidential race. However, if the majority of the justices uphold the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, Trump could be barred from holding the presidency, leading states to remove him from their ballots.
This case has divided legal scholars, but many agree that it is crucial for the Supreme Court to settle the dispute on its merits. With Super Tuesday approaching and voters in 15 states set to cast their ballots for the Republican primary, it is essential to have clarity on whether Trump is eligible to run. A decision by the Supreme Court will not only impact the current election but also shape future interpretations of Section 3 and its application to presidential candidates.
The outcome of this case has far-reaching implications for American democracy. It will determine whether a former president can be held accountable for actions that may disqualify them from seeking re-election. Upholding the Constitution and the rule of law is of paramount importance, and the Supreme Court’s decision will play a crucial role in preserving the integrity of the presidential election process.
