Recently, the Supreme Court heard arguments on the Trump v Anderson case, which could determine whether President Trump appears on the ballot or whether he is disqualified for participating in an insurrection.
The case is at once momentous. Imagine the chaos that would ensue in removing a major party presidential candidate from the ballot well into election season. But at the same time, the case is tactical, dealing with a previously obscure part of the Constitution, involving questions of interpretation of what the word “insurrection” or the phrase “officer of the United States” means.
The crux of the case is a section of the 14th amendment that banned certain government officials who participated in an insurrection from holding office. The direct issue at hand was the fate of thousands of federal, state and local office holders who supported the Confederacy in the Civil War. But even though almost all the cases involving disqualification from office for insurrection occurred in the aftermath of the Civil War, the provision was written broadly enough that it might apply to office holders who participate in an insurrection in the future.
This nearly forgotten provision of the Constitution had new life breathed into it by legal commentators, and especially by two conservative legal scholars, Will Baude and Michael Paulsen, who argued not only that Trump had participated in an insurrection, but also that any state could make that decision itself and remove Trump from the ballot.
Many states now looked at this issue. In Colorado, the state Supreme Court decided to remove Trump from the ballot, leading to the case of Trump v. Anderson before the court today. In Maine, the Secretary of State decided that Trump was ineligible to appear on its ballot.
In early February, the [Supreme] Court heard over two hours of oral arguments on the case. And while it is often dangerous to read too much into oral arguments, in their questions, the justices seem to reveal a strong interest in not issuing a messy decision. They worried about the prospect of different states coming up with different decisions about Trump’s ballot status. They worried that if they did not decide definitively, they might face more cases later in the year. They worried about the prospect of a trial in federal court, where the court would have to engage in fact finding about January 6th or other charges relating to insurrection.
It’s not clear how the court will get to a decision. Will they decide the section of the 14th Amendment does not apply to Trump as a former president? Will they decide that a stronger signal would need to come from Congress before states make decisions on Trump’s ballot status?
But at the end of the day, the court seems focused on pragmatic concerns. How can we run an election that looks like a typical election? And how can the process go forward without the Supreme Court becoming overly involved? There are plenty of constitutional and political issues that will consume legal scholars and defenders and opponents of Donald Trump. But as for the final decision on Trump’s status, the court seems determined not to allow state courts, secretaries of state, or even the Supreme Court itself to make this decision. Trump’s fate will likely be decided by voters in November.
Related
John Fortier
Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
View Video LibraryCommentary
Our commentary partners will help you reach your own conclusions on complex topics.
‘The worst it’s ever been’: Young Americans on democracy
15 hrs ago
Dr. Frank Luntz
How to handle plunging US birth rate before it’s too late
15 hrs ago
Peter Zeihan
Japan must confront reality of military threats
Yesterday
Peter Zeihan
US may need to find new sources of uranium
Tuesday
Peter Zeihan
Trump v. Anderson is more complicated than it looks
Feb 29
By Straight Arrow News
The Supreme Court case Trump v. Anderson will decide whether former President Donald Trump is eligible to run as a candidate for president in 2024. Some constitutional law experts have argued that Trump cannot run as a candidate, citing what they say is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, which states that no individual who participates in rebellion or insurrection against the United States can be eligible for any public office. However, the case also involves questions about the agency of individual states to make that determination on their own.
Straight Arrow News contributor John Fortier analyzes the signals coming out of the Supreme Court to assess how the justices might rule on the case. Fortier argues that Trump’s role in Jan. 6 is only one of several important questions that the justices must rule on, and that these other questions might severely complicate the final ruling. In the end, Fortier says, U.S. voters may have to decide Trump’s fate at the ballot box in November.
Recently, the Supreme Court heard arguments on the Trump v. Anderson case, which could determine whether President Trump appears on the ballot or whether he is disqualified for participating in an insurrection.
The case is at once momentous. Imagine the chaos that would ensue in removing a major party presidential candidate from the ballot well into election season. But at the same time, the case is technical, dealing with a previously obscure part of the Constitution, involving questions of interpretation of what the word “insurrection” or the phrase “officer of the United States” means.
The crux of the case is a section of the 14th Amendment that banned certain government officials who participated in an insurrection from holding office. The direct issue at hand was the fate of thousands of federal, state and local officeholders who supported the Confederacy in the Civil War. But even though almost all the cases involving disqualification from office for insurrection occurred in the aftermath of the Civil War, the provision was written broadly enough that it might apply to officeholders who participate in an insurrection in the future.
Recently, the Supreme Court heard arguments on the Trump v Anderson case, which could determine whether President Trump appears on the ballot or whether he is disqualified for participating in an insurrection.
The case is at once momentous. Imagine the chaos that would ensue in removing a major party presidential candidate from the ballot well into election season. But at the same time, the case is tactical, dealing with a previously obscure part of the Constitution, involving questions of interpretation of what the word “insurrection” or the phrase “officer of the United States” means.
The crux of the case is a section of the 14th amendment that banned certain government officials who participated in an insurrection from holding office. The direct issue at hand was the fate of thousands of federal, state and local office holders who supported the Confederacy in the Civil War. But even though almost all the cases involving disqualification from office for insurrection occurred in the aftermath of the Civil War, the provision was written broadly enough that it might apply to office holders who participate in an insurrection in the future.
This nearly forgotten provision of the Constitution had new life breathed into it by legal commentators, and especially by two conservative legal scholars, Will Baude and Michael Paulsen, who argued not only that Trump had participated in an insurrection, but also that any state could make that decision itself and remove Trump from the ballot.
Many states now looked at this issue. In Colorado, the state Supreme Court decided to remove Trump from the ballot, leading to the case of Trump v. Anderson before the court today. In Maine, the Secretary of State decided that Trump was ineligible to appear on its ballot.
In early February, the [Supreme] Court heard over two hours of oral arguments on the case. And while it is often dangerous to read too much into oral arguments, in their questions, the justices seem to reveal a strong interest in not issuing a messy decision. They worried about the prospect of different states coming up with different decisions about Trump’s ballot status. They worried that if they did not decide definitively, they might face more cases later in the year. They worried about the prospect of a trial in federal court, where the court would have to engage in fact finding about January 6th or other charges relating to insurrection.
It’s not clear how the court will get to a decision. Will they decide the section of the 14th Amendment does not apply to Trump as a former president? Will they decide that a stronger signal would need to come from Congress before states make decisions on Trump’s ballot status?
But at the end of the day, the court seems focused on pragmatic concerns. How can we run an election that looks like a typical election? And how can the process go forward without the Supreme Court becoming overly involved? There are plenty of constitutional and political issues that will consume legal scholars and defenders and opponents of Donald Trump. But as for the final decision on Trump’s status, the court seems determined not to allow state courts, secretaries of state, or even the Supreme Court itself to make this decision. Trump’s fate will likely be decided by voters in November.
Related
US elections have become much more secure since 2000
Donald Trump and his allies successfully convinced many Americans that U.S. voting systems are flawed and unreliable in order to justify his attempts to remain in power after losing to Joe Biden in the 2020 election. Today, much of that skepticism still endures. Americans now confront the problem of how to restore public trust in…
May 2
SCOTUS case on threat of disinformation raises thorny questions
The Supreme Court recently heard arguments concerning government communications with social media platforms in Murthy v. Missouri. Plantiffs in the case claim that government agencies pressured social media companies to remove or restrict posts spreading disinformation about vaccines, elections and COVID-19. Straight Arrow News contributor John Fortier delves into the complex questions raised by the…
Mar 28
Trump v. Anderson is more complicated than it looks
The Supreme Court case Trump v. Anderson will decide whether former President Donald Trump is eligible to run as a candidate for president in 2024. Some constitutional law experts have argued that Trump cannot run as a candidate, citing what they say is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, which…
Feb 29
Era of Iowa, New Hampshire kicking off election season is ending
In American politics, tradition dictates that Iowa and New Hampshire kick off the election season as the two major parties elect their primary candidates. Recently, however, Democrats have suggested revising this tradition, arguing that Iowa and New Hampshire do not present an optimal, comprehensive sample of American voters, and suggesting states like South Carolina or…
Feb 1
Why the frenzy over Georgia’s voting laws was misplaced
Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) changed state voting laws after President Joe Biden narrowly won Georgia’s electoral votes over former President Donald Trump in 2020. Voting advocacy groups responded and the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the legislation. These lawsuits alleged that the Georgia GOP in the state legislature aimed to restrict…
Dec 28
Underreported stories from each side
Trump slams Biden over conditioning weapons supply to Israel
15 sources | 8% from the left
Getty Images
GOP official argues in favor of child marriage: Girls are ‘ripe’ and ‘fertile’
11 sources | 0% from the right
New Hampshire House of Representatives
Latest Stories
Is a bill to require proof of citizenship for voting necessary?
Watch 4:52
10 hrs ago
GM to end production of the Chevrolet Malibu to make more EVs
Watch 1:23
10 hrs ago
First aid ship bound for new Gaza pier sets sail from Cyprus
Watch 1:55
12 hrs ago
Trump asks oil companies to raise $1B, vows rollback of Biden’s green policies
Watch 1:26
12 hrs ago
Migrants in Denver issue list of demands to city before clearing encampments
Watch 1:32
13 hrs ago
Popular Opinions
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.
Putin’s promise of a long war might be hollow threat
16 hrs ago
Leon Aron
Why the Trump family is missing from court appearances
16 hrs ago
Jordan Reid
Arizona bill legalizing shooting migrants is part of GOP brand
Yesterday
Ruben Navarrette
NYPD’s lack of lawsuit disclosure shields it from accountability
Yesterday
Adrienne Lawrence