Trump’s voting eligibility appeal puts US Supreme Court in spotlight

Former US President and current Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump | Credits: Reuters
Former US President and current Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump | Credits: Reuters

United States: Former President Donald Trump’s appeal of a Colorado verdict preventing him from voting may force the United States Supreme Court to weigh in directly on his 2024 election prospects, according to legal experts, in a case that would undoubtedly draw the Supreme Court’s nine justices into a political firestorm.

That state was the first, followed by Maine, to determine that Trump was ineligible to run for the Republican presidential nomination because of his conduct leading up to the January 6, 2021, attack on the United States Capitol, an unusual legal decision that the nation’s highest court may find too urgent to postpone.

Legal experts weigh in

“I doubt that any of the justices are pleased that they’re being forced into the fray over Donald Trump’s future. But it seems to me that the court will have no choice but to face these momentous issues,” said attorney Deepak Gupta, who has argued cases before the Supreme Court, according to reports by Reuters.

According to Gupta, the justices would have to respond with “unusual speed and, hopefully, in a way that does not further divide our deeply divided country. That’s a difficult and unenviable duty.”

Colorado Republicans and Trump, the frontrunner for the Republican 2024 presidential nomination, are asking the justice to review the politically explosive December 19 decision disqualifying him from the primary ballot under a constitutional provision barring anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding public office.

The case poses difficult problems for American democracy. States might apply their standards of eligibility for office in the absence of action by the Supreme Court, whose 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices selected by Trump.

Colorado and Maine are both Democratic-leaning states that impartial US political analysts predict would vote against a Republican presidential candidate on November 5. However, activities in other states, particularly highly competitive Michigan, could influence the election’s outcome.

The dean of the University of California Berkeley Law School, Erwin Chemerinsky, has urged that the Supreme Court should “take the case and resolve early and for the entire country whether Trump can be on the ballot,” Reuters reported.

“The court either would be precluding Trump from being on the ballot or allowing him to remain,” Chemerinsky said. “Either way, the court would be playing a huge role in the election.”

14th Amendment 

The Colorado court’s ruling marked the first time in history that Section 3 of the US Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment – the so-called disqualification clause – had been used to deem a presidential candidate ineligible.

US Supreme Court | Credits: Google

According to legal experts, the court would not have to decide whether Trump engaged in an insurgency to resolve the issue. Trump’s lawyers have contended that the constitutional Amendment in question does not apply to US presidents and that the subject of presidential eligibility is reserved for Congress.

Past Cases Passed Over

Trump frequently brags about his three Supreme Court appointments, which helped Republicans achieve long-sought goals such as abolishing the national right to abortion, limiting affirmative action, and extending gun rights. He has also expressed his displeasure with the court over judgments he disagreed with, including one in 2022 that granted Congress long-sought access to his tax returns.

Trump said on social media at the time, “The Supreme Court has lost its honor, prestige, and standing, & has become nothing more than a political body.”

The court rejected arguments brought by Trump and his allies contesting portions of the 2020 election, which Trump wrongly claims was marred by rampant fraud, including a Texas move to overturn voting results in four states, as per Reuters.

In recent months, it has turned down a separate opportunity to examine Trump’s eligibility and has declined to rule on Trump’s assertion that he cannot be jailed for attempting to overturn his 2020 election setback. The court was in a similar position in 2000 when it decided Bush v. Gore, a decision that gave Republican George W. Bush the election over Democrat Al Gore. However, the stakes may be more significant this time.

“In the year 2000, the court had plenty of legitimacy and credibility to spare – it was a far less politicized court in the eyes of the public,” Gupta said in a statement.

In comparison to 2000, the public is more politicized, and democracy appears more vulnerable, so whatever the court rules are, there will be consequences, according to UCLA School of Law elections expert Richard Hasen.

Hasen believes the best approach for the court to maintain its legitimacy is to “issue a unanimous or nearly unanimous ruling.” This would assist in sending a message that this is not a party issue.”