- Donald Trump was declared ineligible to appear on the Colorado ballot on December 19 and his appeal will be heard on Thursday
- The decision marked the first time in history that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate
- Supreme Court justices will hear arguments from both sides about whether Trump is ineligible to be president again and can be kept off the 2024 ballot
The Supreme Court is set to consider if Donald Trump should be banned from running for president and whether his name can be left off the 2024 ballot in Colorado.
Trump was declared ineligible to appear on the Colorado ballot on December 19 and his appeal against the state’s Supreme Court’s decision will be heard on Thursday.
The decision marked the first time in history that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate. The Civil War-era rule states that people who participate in an insurrection are ineligible for office.
Supreme Court justices will hear arguments from both sides about whether Trump can be kept off the ballot.
The highest court could even rule if the January 6 riot was an insurrection when a mob stormed the US Capitol to protest the election that saw Joe Biden beat Trump in 2020.
The Supreme Court will decide if Trump should be removed from the Colorado ballot and if similar attempts in other states are valid.
The Republican politician, 77, is the likely frontrunner to challenge Biden, 81, in the upcoming general presidential election in November.
His case is moving much faster than usual in scheduling arguments and there is pressure for a decision to be reached before March 5. This is when voters in 15 states, including Colorado, cast their ballots in the Republican primaries.
Trump’s name is currently on the Colorado ballot ahead of any Supreme Court. Maine also looked at removing Trump from its ballot but that move has also been paused.
It is based on a Civil War-era Constitutional amendment that bans anyone who has ‘engaged in insurrection or rebellion’ from holding federal office but this has never been used to disqualify a candidate for president.
The 14th Amendment has been around since 1868, but the Supreme Court has never before considered Section 3, known as the insurrection clause.
Both sides are pointing to historical clues to argue for their reading of the provision, including how it was interpreted at the time of its adoption.
The lawyers will reference arguments made 150 years ago by Salmon Chase, a member of Abraham Lincoln’s Cabinet who Lincoln appointed to the Supreme Court in 1864.
Chase, in December 1868, ruled on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment – which had only been enacted in July of that year.
Section 3 was designed in the aftermath of the Civil War to prevent Confederates from being elected.
‘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, who … shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,’ it states.
Chase ruled Jefferson Davis, the defeated Confederate president, should not face prosecution for treason.
He argued Section 3 – blocking Davis from holding office – was a form of punishment, and therefore barred any additional criminal prosecution.
At the time, Chase, formerly the Republican governor of Ohio, was toying with running for president as a Democrat, and hoping to appeal to Davis’s Democrat colleagues.
Trump is not expected to attend the hearing to hear the arguments on Thursday.
The Supreme Court could also be ruling on another Trump case after a federal appeals court rejected his claim of presidential immunity.
It ruled he could be prosecuted on charges relating to plotting to overturn the 2020 election. There is a deadline of Monday to get the Supreme Court to pause this ruling.