Supreme Court Hears Landmark Case on Trump's Eligibility for the Ballot

Within months of the insurrection on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, spearheaded by avid supporters of then-lame-duck president Donald Trump, political scientists and commentators began to speculate on whether a little-known section of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution could be used against Trump for his role in inciting the incident. The 14th Amendment, a Reconstruction amendment protecting citizens' fundamental rights and establishing due process, has gained light for its third section, a paragraph referred to colloquially as the 'insurrection clause':

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof...."

Due to the intention of the insurrection clause to bar individuals from office if they have engaged in "insurrection or rebellion," some have argued that Trump ought to be rendered ineligible for and removed from the ballots of the presidential primary and general elections in 2024. Trump's impeachment by the House of Representatives exactly a week after the incident on account of incitement of insurrection has provided a legal basis for proponents of this argument.

Former president Trump encouraging his supporters to march to the US Capitol Building on January 6, 2021, during the certification of Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election. (The Washington Post)

The arguments in favor of holding Trump accountable for his actions on January 6 under the insurrection clause ultimately culminated in the case Anderson v. Griswold in Colorado. Filed on September 6, 2023, and with its final decision released on December 19, the Colorado Supreme Court determined that Trump's speech and actions towards his supporters on January 6 constitute insurrection and that Trump is liable for punishment under the 14th Amendment, leading to his removal from the primary election ballot in Colorado.

Maine was quick to follow suit and move to have Trump removed from its primary ballot on the basis of the insurrection clause. But the decisions of both states have not come without swift objection from Trump and his legal team, who sued Norma Anderson and the others responsible for the initial suit of Anderson v. Griswold in a new case known as Trump v. Anderson, approved to be heard and pushed through by the US Supreme Court on January 5, 2024. On February 8, the case underwent oral argument, with the majority of justices displaying a notable lean towards Trump's point of view that he ought to remain on primary ballots.

During oral arguments on the afternoon of February 8, 2024, Trump's attorney Jonathan Mitchell speaks before the Supreme Court. (CNN, illustrated by Bill Hennessy)

“Your position has the effect of disenfranchising voters to a significant degree,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued towards an attorney representing Anderson. However, although Kavanaugh is a known conservative member of the high court, even liberal justices have proven skeptical of the reliability of the respondents' case and evidence. “Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens, but for the rest of the nation?” asked Justice Elena Kagan. Additionally, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal justice appointed by current president Joe Biden, noted an important point raised by Trump's representatives -- the lack of the word "president" in the provisions of the insurrection clause. “I guess that just makes me worry that maybe they weren’t focused on the president,” she elaborated.

While the final decision of Trump v. Anderson remains pending, many citizens have already used such questions and statements by the justices of the Supreme Court to make the conclusion that the Court is poised to rule in Trump's favor, upholding his placement on primary election ballots nationwide. Some left-leaning citizens may be quick to shun a development like this as a purely political act by the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, but there are also a number of liberal citizens who are not invested in the pursuance of the Trump v. Anderson case. “There is no doubt that Donald Trump is a threat to our liberties and even to our democracy,” California president Gavin Newsom explained, “but in California, we defeat candidates at the polls. Everything else is a political distraction.” Many theories and opinions such as these have already circulated and will continue to make their way into nationwide discussion, but of course, the final decision in this case remains yet to be determined.

Sources:

• https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/anderson-v-griswold/
• https://www.theusconstitution.org/news/release-colorado-supreme-court-decision-represents-a-win-for-colorado-voters-democracy-and-constitutional-accountability/
• https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/supreme-court-trump-ballot-colorado-02-08-24/index.html
• https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-02-08/supreme-court-trump-ballot-insurrection
• https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-719
• https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-12-23/governor-newsom-on-trump-california-ballot