The Legal Battle: Trump's Supreme Court Challenge
A deep dive into the legal battle as Donald Trump fights to stay on state presidential ballots.
The Legal World Unites Behind Trump
In a dramatic Supreme Court battle to secure his place on state presidential ballots, Donald Trump has garnered the support of a potent contingent within the conservative legal world. This united front has coalesced behind Trump as he faces a crucial legal challenge that could have far-reaching implications for the upcoming November general election.
Donald Trump testifies on January 25, in this courtroom sketch.
His new principal attorney for the case, Jonathan Mitchell, is a former Supreme Court clerk with ties to the right-wing elite. Mitchell is notably linked to the 2021 Texas abortion ban, a law that played a pivotal role in the reversal of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. This Texas law, designed with a shrewd mechanism to impede judicial review, drew disparaging remarks from liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who referred to its architects as 'some geniuses.'
The Legal Showdown
The legal battle surrounding the case of Trump v. Anderson has set the stage for a high-stakes showdown with nationwide implications. The Colorado voters, who initially succeeded in keeping Trump off the ballot at the state Supreme Court level, have been represented by former US Supreme Court clerks who have risen to prominence as advocates.
The upcoming arguments, scheduled for February 8, are centered on an anti-insurrectionist safeguard in the Constitution and are expected to be fiercely contested. Given the conservative dominance of the bench, Trump's legal team could find more allies in the give-and-take of the proceedings.
The Legal Interpretation
The crux of the legal battle revolves around the interpretation of the Constitution's 14th Amendment, specifically Section 3, which addresses disqualification from holding office in the event of engagement in insurrection or rebellion. Mitchell, in his arguments, emphasized that the president is not covered by Section 3, citing textualist readings and historical context.
Trump's legal team also contends that Section 3 applies only to a person who would 'hold' office, not 'run' for office. This contention has been supported by prominent legal figures, including former Republican attorneys general, who stress the broader implications of interpreting Section 3 in a way that could empower partisan officials to disqualify their political opponents from the ballot.
