Supreme Court Seems Skeptical of Trump’s Removal from Colorado Ballot Over 6 January ‘Insurrection’

The United States Supreme Court is hearing a landmark case on Thursday (8 February) about whether former President Donald Trump can remain on Colorado ballot.

The case, Trump v. Anderson, centers on whether Trump engaged in an “insurrection” by inciting a crowd to storm the US Capitol on 6 January 2021, and whether that would make him constitutionally ineligible to run for president under the 14th Amendment.

This comes after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump is ineligible to appear on the ballot over his actions surrounding the 6 January riot.

Also Read: US Border Crisis: Bipartisan $110 Billion Senate Bill ‘Dead On Arrival’ In House, says Speaker Mike Johnson

Supreme Court Looks Poised to Favor Trump

The Supreme Court justices appear to be skeptical of Trump challengers’ arguments in the case.

This is the first time that the court is considering the meaning and reach of a provision of the 14th Amendment barring former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding public office again. 

In more than two hours of spirited, often tense, arguments, the justices asked tough questions of both sides about whether the president or presidential candidate is exempt from the constitutional provision adopted after the Civil War.

Many of the queries focused on whether state courts or elected state officials can unilaterally enforce constitutional provisions and declare candidates ineligible for public office, so-called “self-executing” authority, or is that exclusively the jurisdiction of the US Congress. 

Chief Justice John Roberts warned of a “pretty severe consequence” if disqualification proceedings from “the other side” targeting Democratic candidates.

raised concerns about “severe” consequences of Colorado banning former President Donald Trump from the ballot.

Roberts wondered if doing so would lead to other states booting other candidates off the ballot based on political motivations.

“Counsel, what do you do with the, what seem to me to be the plain consequences of your position?” Roberts asked Jason Murray, the attorney for Colorado voters.

“If Colorado’s position is upheld, surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side, and some of those will succeed … I would expect that a goodly number of states will say, whomever the Democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot,” he said.

Even some of the liberal justices have posed difficult questions to the lawyers opposing former President Donald Trump.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Biden nominee, noted that the 14th Amendment provision at issue in the case did not include the word “president,” even though it specifically listed other officials who would be covered, such as members of Congress. That is a central argument Trump’s attorneys have raise in the case.

“They were listing people that were barred and ‘president’ is not there,” Jackson said. “I guess that just makes me worry that maybe they weren’t focused on the president.”

6 January Riot: Insurrection or Not?

Earlier, Trump’s attorney Jonathan Mitchell faced hard questions from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson over whether 6 January riot at the US Capitol was an “insurrection”.

“The Colorado Supreme Court concluded that the violent attempts of the petitioner’s [Trump] supporters, in this case to halt the count on Jan. 6 qualify as an insurrection as defined by Section 3 … what is your position on that?” Jackson asked. 

“We never accepted or conceded in our opening brief that this was an insurrection,” Mitchell replied.

“What we said in our opening brief was President Trump did not engage in any act that can plausibly be characterized as insurrection,” he added.

“For an insurrection, there needs to be an organized, concerted effort to overthrow the government of the United States through violence,” he continued.

“A chaotic attempt to overthrow the government doesn’t qualify?” she interjected.

“We didn’t concede this was an effort to overthrow the government either,” Mitchell said. 

However, it appears that justices have been less focused on deciding whether 6 January event was an “insurrection” and more on if states can determine ballot eligibility for federal positions.

Also Read: Search on for Missing Military Helicopter Carrying five US Marines From Nevada To California