5 takeaways from Supreme Court arguments in Trump’s ballot case

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Thursday on whether former President Trump should be removed from this year’s ballot.

The case stems from a December ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court, which ruled that Trump should be excluded from the state’s Republican primary under the 14th Amendment. was lowered.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment appears to bar anyone who “participates in insurrection or insurrection” from holding public office, but its precise meaning is debated and was heavily debated during Thursday’s deliberations.

Trump’s critics say his actions regarding the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot amounted to an insurrection and therefore he should be barred from voting. His defenders counter that such a decision would deny voters basic rights.

President Trump faces 14th Amendment challenges in several other states, making the Supreme Court’s case even more tense.

The main contents of this day are as follows.

Judges appear highly skeptical of anti-Trump lawsuits

Oral arguments can sometimes mislead the judge about where they will ultimately land. But if the court ultimately sides with Colorado, it would come as a big surprise after Thursday’s arguments.

The justices seemed highly skeptical about giving states the power to bar candidates from federal office because of the 14th Amendment.

That might be expected on the high court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority. But apparently even some liberal justices have concerns.

Justice Elena Kagan told Jason Murray, an attorney representing six Colorado voters who filed a lawsuit to remove President Trump from the ballot, that “the question we must face is why a single state and who the U.S. “Do I have to decide whether to become president?” he asked.

Kagan was appointed to the bar by former President Obama. Her concerns were echoed shortly thereafter by her ideological opponent, Justice Amy Coney Barrett. “I don’t think this is a request from the nation,” said Barrett, a Trump presidential candidate.

Mr. Murray also experienced several awkward moments during questioning from judges, including Justice Clarence Thomas, who asked him if he could be considered a candidate for federal office on the grounds of insurrection. It became clear that it is extremely rare.

The most heated exchange of the day took place between Justice Murray and Justice Neil Gorsuch, who argued that if the plaintiffs’ claims were taken at face value, the sitting president had committed a tort from the moment he aided and abetted the alleged insurrection. He suggested that it could be considered.

Gorsuch asked whether military officers or law enforcement officials could refuse to comply with the president’s orders in such a scenario. Murray seemed hesitant to answer the question directly, and a frustrated Gorsuch chided him, telling him to “change the hypothesis.”

Beyond these fireworks, it was clear that the overall atmosphere of the courtroom questioning seemed very favorable to Trump.

But not all is smooth sailing for the Trump team.

Team Trump looks likely to emerge victorious, but there were some uncomfortable moments along the way.

Initially, President Trump’s attorney Jonathan Mitchell argued that states did not have the power to remove people from federal voting, but Chief Justice John Roberts intervened.

Mr. Roberts asked how this could be true in a comprehensive sense. He presented a hypothesis of a candidate attempting to vote in Illinois while living in Indiana, in violation of residency requirements.

“A secretary of state can’t say, ‘No,’ can you?” asked an incredulous Roberts.

Mitchell argued that the alleged insurrection case is different, arguing that excluding candidates on 14th Amendment grounds is tantamount to changing their qualifications for office.

Later, amid debate over the amendment’s confusing provisions, the question being whether it applied only to those who had previously taken the oath of office, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that for these reasons, He noted that the exemption only applies to Trump.

Trump had never been sworn into political or military office before becoming president.

“It’s a bit of a gerrymandering rule, isn’t it?” Sotomayor snorted. “Is it designed to benefit only your client?”

It peaks on January 6th, but only to a small extent.

The Capitol riot itself was not the central issue of the debate, but instead focused on case law and the precise meaning of the 14th Amendment.

But it was sometimes dramatically focused.

For example, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson took issue with some of the Trump team’s arguments that January 6 did not constitute an insurrection.

Mitchell, Trump’s lawyer, said the insurrection “needs to be an organized and coordinated effort to overthrow the United States government.”

“Isn’t a disorderly effort to overthrow the government an insurrection?” Jackson shot back.

Separately, Trump’s claim that he would not be prosecuted (an issue likely to come before the courts in a separate case) also briefly surfaced.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked Mitchell whether he accepted that someone tried and convicted of sedition by federal prosecutors could actually be disqualified from office.

“Yes, but the only caveat I would add is that our client claims he has executive privilege,” Mitchell responded. “Therefore, we would not allow him to potentially be prosecuted for what he did on January 6th.”

Surprise from Judge Jackson

One of the most surprising developments of the day revolved around Jackson.

Jackson, a liberal pick by President Biden and the only Black female justice in the court’s history, was widely expected to be skeptical of Trump’s case.

That may also apply to some of the arguments advanced by the former president.

But Mr. Jackson seemed surprisingly sympathetic to the argument that the relevant provisions of the 14th Amendment do not apply to the presidency.

She said that given the original circumstances of the Civil War, the amendment simply protects against “the potential for infiltration and co-optation of insurgents into the machinery of state government, and the real risks that former Confederates may pose.” I asked lawyers for both sides if this was just for the purpose of doing so. Take back power in the South through state-level elections. ”

Trump’s critics argue that it is impossible for the framers of the 14th Amendment to exempt the president while barring lower-level officials from entering the country for insurrection. There is.

It was striking to see Jackson seem to be taking the opposite tack.

President Trump and his allies fight back

Immediately after the Supreme Court argument, President Trump told reporters at Mar-a-Lago that the lawsuit amounted to “further election interference by Democrats.”

He repeated his often-voiced criticism of the alleged “weaponization” of the justice system, but praised the defense team’s presentation as “very good” and insisted it was “well received.”

Several Trump supporters, including Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) and Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), also argued that the Colorado effort is fundamentally undemocratic. , expressed support for him.