Trump’s 14th Amendment case reaches Supreme Court: What to expect

Lawyers for former President Trump are scheduled to face a historic Supreme Court showdown Thursday when they appear before a judge to throw out a lawsuit challenging Trump’s Title 14 voting eligibility.^th Fixed.

Thursday’s oral arguments are the most significant milestone yet in the patchwork challenge to prevent Trump from returning to the White House over his actions over the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. It is planned to be.

After Colorado became the first state to disqualify President Trump, the Supreme Court agreed to take up the issue, and the Supreme Court’s decision could determine how the nation votes for President Trump. It will be. The former president’s team touted his recent victories in Iowa and New Hampshire and warned the justices that Trump’s disqualification would “cause confusion and condemnation.”

“In our system of ‘government of the people and by the people,’ [and] “For the people, the American people, not the courts or election officials, should choose the next president of the United States,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in their final speech before Thursday’s arguments.

Here’s what Trump’s lawyers are expected to argue before the Supreme Court:

Trump didn’t start an insurrection.

The Colorado Supreme Court found that Trump “engaged in insurrection” in order to disqualify him.

But Trump’s lawyers have argued that Jan. 6 was not an insurrection as defined by the clause, which was originally ratified after the Civil War and allowed former Confederate members to return to federal office. was intended to prevent.

Even so, the Trump campaign argues that the Colorado voters who filed the lawsuit still cannot link their client to the Capitol attack.

The Jan. 6 riot is now the top issue at the Supreme Court, and legal observers will be watching to see how far the justices delve into the politically contentious issue in Thursday’s arguments. ing.

Alex Reinert, a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, said there is also the question of whether the Supreme Court will respect lower courts’ factual findings regarding President Trump’s conduct.

“There is no question that there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to find that he was involved in the insurrection. I don’t know if the court would do something like that.” said Reinert, who clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer during the time he decided v. Gore.

“And I think the courts have to answer that question for themselves, and frankly, it’s a little difficult for the courts to answer that.”

The president is not a federal “officer”

Many legal experts believe the Supreme Court will not touch on the controversial insurrection issue at all. Instead, the court could keep Trump’s name on the ballot by overturning lower rulings on any of several other issues.

This includes President Trump’s claims.^th The amendment’s ban on insurrection does not apply to the presidency.

There are two elements to the argument. Trump first argues that because the ban only applies to people who participate in the insurrection after serving as “officers of the United States,” he previously did not hold a qualifying job.

Second, President Trump pointed out that the amendment only prohibits covered individuals from holding “any office…under the United States,” and similarly that category does not include the presidency. he claimed.

“President Trump’s press conferences so far have tended to argue that the office of president is not a U.S. office, meaning the office of president is not covered by Article III, and therefore this entire matter should disappear,” the legal community said. said Derek Muller. A professor at the University of Notre Dame who submitted a brief on the issue.

The debate, supported by some conservative legal scholars, focuses on how the Constitution uses the term “officer” in other provisions.

John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who filed an amicus brief supporting President Trump, pointed out that “nowhere in the Constitution do they use the phrase United States officer to include the president.” did. .

Yu, a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, and other supporters are also focused on how the trials of the 14 people were conducted.^th The drafters of the amendment detailed other positions to which the ban on insurrection would apply, but did not explicitly list the presidential position.

“Typically, by law, if an author says they want to include A, B, C, and E, you naturally say, ‘Oh, you should have included D, so we can do that for you. We don’t say, ‘Just include it.” That’s the approach that people who think it should be included in the office of president are using,” Yu said.

The challengers’ lawyers, on the other hand, argue that “Article 3 disqualifies all Rebel officers (from postmasters to county sheriffs) who break their oaths, except for the most powerful former commander-in-chief. It goes against common sense.” ”

Section 3 of 14 items^th Fixes are not automatic

President Trump then argued that the insurrection ban could not be enforced without Congressional legislation.

He relies primarily on the Griffin case. This decision was authored by Justice Salmon Chase, then presiding over the lower courts, in 1869, one year after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Chase opposed the disqualification of judges even if they were former Confederates, ruling that “legislation by Congress was necessary” to enforce the insurrection prohibition.

All parties agree this is not a binding precedent, and critics say Chase’s decision was influenced by his political ambitions to become president and should not be trusted. suggests.

Mr. Trump and his allies have cited the case extensively, suggesting it as persuasive authority for judges to consult in their deliberations.

“These are the words of a man who was a leading member of the time. He was the chief justice of the United States, and before that he was a member of Lincoln’s cabinet, and one of the great abolitionist lawyers. In a sense, he was more famous than Lincoln – and this is what he thought,” said Yu, who cited the incident several times in his brief.

President Trump has said the plaintiffs should defer to Congress, but critics say there is nothing to suggest Congress believed federal law was the only way to enforce the rule. They point out that there is no law and states cannot enforce their own laws and regulations.

Section 3 prohibits holding and running for office

Trump also argues that people should continue to vote because the ban only prevents individuals from seeking public office, not from seeking it.

“Article III is an incumbency-only ban, and Congress can waive this ban from now until the end of the next presidential term,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.

But Mueller says that argument only pushes things forward.

“If he were to win, if he received a majority of votes, would that put pressure on Congress to refuse to count the votes cast for him? Will it put pressure on the legal system to challenge the qualifications of a person?” Mueller said. “Who knows what will happen from there?”

Colorado Supreme Court violated state law

Trump’s closing arguments argue that the Colorado court that ruled him ineligible misinterpreted state law and cannot remove him from the ballot.

“When a court misinterprets a state law and undermines the intent of Congress, in effect the court…is itself abusing its power in a way that actually usurps Congress, which is a constitutional function. “This means that we are in a position to do so,” Mueller said.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued that Colorado law enforcement can only intervene in voting disputes if individuals, like Colorado Secretary of State Jenna Griswold, are “obligated to do so” under Colorado election law. “This is limited to cases where a person has committed or is about to commit a violation or omission.” Other misconduct. ”

If Article III only prohibits individuals from holding public office, and prohibits them from seeking or winning public office, Griswold said, “by putting President Trump on the ballot, we would not be able to comply with the 14th Amendment.” He will not violate or disregard any ‘duties’ or commit any ‘misconduct,”’ Trump’s lawyers said. .

“It’s a pretty open discussion, but it doesn’t get a lot of attention. It only applies to Colorado,” Mueller said. “I think there are limits to how this can be applied in this context. That’s probably why it hasn’t gotten much attention. It might not get all that much.”