Efforts to prevent former President Donald Trump from running for the White House again have reached a crucial stage as the Supreme Court begins hearings on lawsuits aiming to bar him from the ballot. In a week-long hearing in Colorado, a motion by Trump to have the judge step aside due to her past donations to a liberal group was rejected. Meanwhile, oral arguments are scheduled for Thursday before the Minnesota Supreme Court on a similar effort to remove Trump from the ballot in that state.
The lawsuits are based on the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause, specifically Section Three of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits individuals who engaged in insurrection against the Constitution from holding higher office. The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election and the subsequent attack on the U.S. Capitol disqualify him from the presidency. These cases, which have been filed by liberal groups with strong legal resources, are seen as particularly important among the dozens of cases citing the insurrection clause.
Legal experts suggest that while these cases may be seen as long shots, they raise significant legal questions. The rulings of the lower courts in Colorado and Minnesota are likely to be appealed and could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The highest court in the land has never ruled on the application of the 14th Amendment to bar individuals from holding office due to engaging in insurrection.
Trump and his lawyers have argued against the lawsuits, labeling them as election interference and a legal Hail Mary by the Democrats. They contend that the insurrection clause was not intended to apply to the presidency and that the former president never engaged in insurrection but was exercising his free speech rights. Trump’s lawyers also highlight the lack of precedent on the issue, as the insurrection clause has rarely been invoked since the Civil War era.
The hearings in Colorado and Minnesota could feature testimony from witnesses to the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol and other events related to Trump’s efforts to overturn the election. The arguments are expected to delve into the history of the drafting of the 14th Amendment and its usage since its adoption. Legal scholars have found limited precedent on the application of the insurrection clause, but recent cases have seen it invoked to bar individuals from certain political positions.
These lawsuits represent an important and contentious legal battle with potentially far-reaching consequences. The rulings of the lower courts and the subsequent appeals will shape the interpretation of the insurrection clause and its application to future cases. As the hearings proceed, the nation will be closely watching to see how the courts navigate this uncharted legal territory.
