In a historic ruling, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding the application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to former President Donald Trump. This marks the first time in history that the Supreme Court will examine Section 3, which was originally designed to prevent former Confederates from holding government offices after the Civil War. The neglected provision has come to the forefront due to a combination of Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, united in their rediscovery of its relevance.
The journey began in the summer of 2020 when Gerard Magliocca, a law professor at Indiana University, embarked on a research project concerning two overlooked sentences in Section 3 that prohibit those who 'engaged in insurrection or rebellion' from holding office. Little did he know that his work would gain significance in the wake of the storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, by supporters of then-President Trump.
The aftermath of the Capitol attack led to a surge of interest in Section 3, which had been disregarded for over a century. Legal scholars and organizations started exploring the potential implications of the provision on Trump's political future and the broader application of the amendment. Norma Anderson, a former Republican leader of Colorado's General Assembly, read the 14th Amendment and became intrigued by the provision that prohibited individuals who engaged in insurrection against the Constitution from holding office.
Scholars and activists, including Magliocca and the University of Maryland law professor Mark Graber, raised awareness about Section 3. Free Speech For People, a liberal nonprofit, sent letters to election officials in all 50 states, warning against placing Trump on the ballot in future elections due to his alleged violation of Section 3. However, it wasn't until January 2022 that Section 3 was mentioned in a public document, when CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) filed a complaint in North Carolina against a Republican representative involved in the Capitol rally.
CREW, determined to test the application of Section 3, turned its attention to Couy Griffin, a New Mexico county commissioner involved in the Capitol attack. In September 2022, a New Mexico judge ordered Griffin's removal from office under Section 3, marking the first such removal in over 100 years. CREW was now ready to tackle its main target: Donald Trump.
Both Free Speech For People and CREW scoured state ballot laws to find a jurisdiction that allowed quick challenges to a candidacy. They settled on Colorado, where they hired experienced local election lawyers Martha Tierney and Mario Nicolais to lead the case. They formed a diverse legal team, aiming to avoid partisanship and ensure a fair evaluation of the situation. Norma Anderson became the lead plaintiff in the case.
The legal battle took place in late October and early November, with the defense arguing Trump's innocence while plaintiffs' lawyers cited the evidence of his alleged insurrection. The hearing drew intense scrutiny, and the judge, Sarah Block Wallace, issued her decision on November 17. Although she ruled that Trump had engaged in insurrection, she was hesitant to bar a top presidential contender from the ballot without a clearer application of Section 3 to the office of the president.
The case then moved to the Colorado Supreme Court. After a grueling oral argument, the court announced its 4-3 ruling in favor of the plaintiffs on December 19. The decision was a significant milestone, but it is on hold until the U.S. Supreme Court reviews both the Colorado ruling and a similar case from Maine.
The reaction to these decisions has been intense, with Republicans denouncing them as 'election interference' and 'anti-democratic.' There are concerns that if the rulings stand, they could open the door for more challenges under Section 3, potentially affecting other politicians. Democrats worry that replacing Trump with a Republican candidate may make the upcoming election more challenging for their party.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision on the application of Section 3 to Trump's candidacy in Colorado and Maine will be crucial. Meanwhile, Section 3 has been thrust into the spotlight, triggering debates about its interpretation and implications for future elections. This obscure provision from the 14th Amendment has suddenly become a central focus, causing legal scholars and activists to reevaluate its significance in today's political landscape.
