The US Supreme Court has expressed skepticism towards Colorado’s decision to bar Donald Trump from the state’s presidential primary. This move by Colorado’s top court, made under the 14th Amendment, has raised questions about its constitutionality and potential consequences. Although Trump remains the overwhelming favorite for the Republican nomination, this legal challenge could impact his candidacy and set the stage for a potential rematch with President Joe Biden in November.
The argument centers around a Civil War-era constitutional amendment that prohibits individuals who have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding federal office. In December, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s actions during the Capitol riot amounted to insurrection, leading to his removal from the ballot. The state’s attorney reinforced this claim during the recent Supreme Court hearing.
During the hearing, the attorney representing the Coloradans who filed the lawsuit, Jonathan Murray, faced intense questioning by the justices. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative judge nominated by Trump, raised concerns over the potential “disenfranchising effect” of removing Trump from the ballot, as it could impede citizens’ ability to vote for their preferred candidate. Murray argued that Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, attempted to disenfranchise the 80 million Americans who voted against him.
Trump’s legal team countered by stating that the events at the Capitol were a riot, not an insurrection. Attorney Jason Mitchell emphasized that while the events were criminal and violent, they did not meet the criteria for an insurrection as outlined in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
The justices on both sides of the court seemed reluctant to uphold the Colorado ban, subjecting Murray to a series of complex legal queries. Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern over the potential chaos that could arise if states were granted the unilateral power to remove candidates from the ballot. The court’s decision holds significance since only a few states ultimately determine the outcome of the presidential election.
Justice Elena Kagan echoed Roberts’ concerns and questioned why a single state should have the authority to decide the presidency. She suggested the enforcement of the 14th Amendment should be federal and national in scope. Trump’s legal team faced their own challenging questions, particularly regarding their claim that the 14th Amendment does not apply to the presidency. Justice Amy Comey Barrett, who was appointed by Trump, expressed skepticism towards this argument.
Experts speculate that it is unlikely the court will uphold the initial Colorado ruling. Constitutional law professor Robert Tsai believes there is a strong possibility that the court will favor the argument that the power to remove a presidential candidate from the ballot falls under the jurisdiction of Congress, not the states. The court has not announced a specific date for their decision, but it is expected to be issued soon, given the urgency surrounding the upcoming Colorado primary on March 5th.
This Supreme Court hearing raises critical questions about the constitutionality of barring Trump from a state’s ballot and the potential consequences it may have on future presidential elections. The decision could have far-reaching implications on the power dynamics between states and the federal government as it pertains to candidate eligibility. The outcome of this case will undoubtedly shape the future landscape of American politics.
