The Potential Impact of the Supreme Court on the Outcome of the 2024 Election
The Supreme Court's pivotal role in the 2024 election comes to light as they confront multiple controversies surrounding GOP frontrunner Donald Trump
In the 2024 presidential election, the Supreme Court has emerged as a central player, with justices grappling with multiple disputes related to the fate of Republican frontrunner Donald Trump. Throughout this century, the court has been at the center of election controversies, including a contentious decision in 2000 that resulted in George W. Bush winning the presidency and a vacant seat on the bench becoming a pivotal issue in Trump's 2016 campaign. Additionally, the court rejected last-minute attempts by the GOP to support Trump's efforts to maintain power in 2020.
Former President Donald Trump greets supporters as he arrives at a commit to caucus rally, Tuesday, Dec. 19, 2023, in Waterloo, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)
Charlie Neibergall/AP
Takeaways from Colorados historic ruling that Trump is ineligible for office based on 14th Amendments insurrectionist ban
Now the justices must quickly decide if the former president is eligible to be on the ballot and if he is immune to prosecution from special counsel Jack Smith. Both controversies stem from his efforts to overturn the 2020 election leading up to the January 6, 2021, US Capitol attack.
"These cases are usually ones that the Supreme Court can avoid, but they are now presenting themselves as national controversies before the court, rather than the court seeking out controversial issues," said Justin Levitt, an election law specialist at Loyola Law School, in an interview with CNN.
"There are limited options for evasion," he remarked. This adds to the already significant term, during which the court will be deciding on the accessibility of a widely-used abortion drug in states where abortion is permitted, the extent of Second Amendment rights, and the future of environmental regulations. All of these policy matters will also have an impact on the upcoming elections.
At a time when the public's view of the Supreme Court is at an all-time low and concerns about ethics persist, Chief Justice John Roberts' recent attempt to address ethics criticism was quickly dismissed as ineffective. In Colorado, the 4-3 majority of the state Supreme Court ruled that Trump was constitutionally ineligible to run in 2024 due to his conduct on January 6 falling under the 14th Amendment's prohibition on insurrectionists holding public office.
The justices wrote in the 134-page majority opinion that President Trump had incited and encouraged violence and lawless action to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power.
In anticipation of Trump's appeal, the Colorado justices have paused their ruling until January 4th. Once Trump inevitably asks the justices to review the ruling, the pause by the Colorado courts will be extended until the nation's highest court announces whether it will take the case - and if it does, until it hands down its final decision. This means that the US Supreme Court could be determining what happens more for the general election, not the primary ballot.
In a statement, Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung expressed full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will promptly rule in their favor and ultimately halt these unAmerican lawsuits.
Getty Images/Sipa/AP
Biden says Trump supported an insurrection but courts should decide if that disqualifies him from presidency
When Trump makes his appeal, the justices will have the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist clause squarely on their desk.
"What's notable about this decision is that they have carefully addressed every single issue that has been raised against it, fully aware that it was going to be brought before the US Supreme Court," commented Nick Akerman, a former Watergate prosecutor, on CNN's "News Central" regarding the Colorado ruling.
Does Trump have immunity from January 6 prosecutors?
"Furthermore, the seriousness with which they are approaching this issue is not limited to its impact on Colorado alone. It has repercussions for all 50 states," he emphasized. "Ultimately, the resolution of this matter will be in the hands of the Supreme Court."
Trumps pre-trial strategy in his federal election subversion case has primarily focused on attempting to have the charges dismissed by arguing that presidential immunity shields him from criminal prosecution for alleged crimes related to the 2020 election. The trial court judge recently dismissed these arguments, leading Trump's team to swiftly request a review by the federal appeals court in Washington, DC.
In an effort to prevent Trump from initiating a lengthy legal battle that could disrupt the March 4 trial, Smith added a surprising turn to the story by requesting the high court to address the immunity question and determine if double jeopardy applies. "It is crucial for the public interest that the immunity claims be settled by this Court and for the trial to proceed promptly if immunity is denied," Smith stated, emphasizing that "only this Court can decisively resolve these matters."
The immunity question will likely be brought before the Supreme Court early next year, even if it declines to examine it now. The DC Circuit has committed to expediting its review of Trump's appeal and has set oral arguments for January 9. In an unrelated case, a federal appeals court in Atlanta criticized the electioneering activities of Trump and his allies after the 2020 election, which could be relevant to Smith's team as they litigate the immunity question.
The attempt by former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to move his criminal case to federal court was rejected on Monday by the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals. Meadows, who is also a defendant in the Georgia case, had argued that his conduct that led to his charges was done as part of his official government role.
Video Ad Feedback
Avlon and Honig debate merit of Colorado ruling against Trump
02:27
- Source:
The three-judge panel, led by a respected conservative jurist, stated that Meadows lacks the authority to influence state officials with claims of election fraud. Additionally, the panel noted that Meadows' official duties do not involve interfering with state election procedures.
The conclusions could support Smith's team as they argue in Washington courts that Trump's actions after the election were not part of his presidential duties and should not protect him from prosecution.
According to Levitt, "It is clear that the president has immunity for acts carried out in his official capacity. However, there is also no doubt that the crimes Trump is currently indicted for were not done in his official capacity."
Justices will scrutinize obstruction law â another key January 6 issue
The Supreme Court agreed last week to consider whether part of a federal obstruction law can be used to prosecute some of the people involved in the Capitol attack.
The ruling in this case could greatly affect Smith's pursuit of Trump by potentially undermining part of his case against the former president. It revolves around a single man's charges for his involvement in the attack, but the justices' decision could impact the numerous other criminal cases the DOJ has brought against individuals connected to the attack. This includes Trump, who faces charges in the federal election case, including obstruction and three others.
After the court took the case last week, there was an immediate ripple effect on ongoing January 6 criminal cases. As a result, at least 10 January 6 defendants have requested modifications in their cases as the issue progresses through the high court. This includes Ethan Seitz, who has asked his trial-level judge to cancel his sentencing hearing scheduled for January due to the pending Supreme Court case. His lawyers have requested that he not be sentenced yet "in the interests of judicial economy."
Two dozen people have been sentenced under this obstruction charge alone, according to the US Attorneys Office in Washington.
Dispute over gag order
Trump may request the high court to consider his challenge to a limited gag order in the federal election subversion case. The DC Circuit recently affirmed most of the gag order issued by District Judge Tanya Chutkan, but also clarified that the restrictions do not apply to comments made about Smith and narrowed the prohibition on Trump speaking about witnesses in the case, altering the original gag order.
Trumps camp has consistently stated that they would seek Supreme Court intervention if the lower courts upheld any part of the order. Attorneys for the ex-president have contended that it constitutes an unconstitutional limitation on political speech by a presidential candidate.
Arthur Engoron and Donald Trump.
Getty Images
Judge denies crucial elements of Trump's defense in NY civil fraud case, signaling trouble for former president. "The district court cannot silence the primary political statements of the frontrunner for President during his re-election campaign," they argued to the appeals court recently. "President Trump has the right to declare his core political messages, and the American people have the right to listen."
The former president's legal team intensified their opposition to the restrictions on Monday by petitioning the full DC Circuit to review its recent decision. If the appeals court rejects the petition, Trump's next move would be to bring the case to the Supreme Court, potentially leading to a highly publicized showdown over his freedom of speech that could impact the campaign trail.
Derek Muller, an election law professor at Notre Dame Law School, stated, "It's not an ideal situation for anyone, but I think there's no question that with any adverse judicial decision, Trump will turn it into campaign talk."
Policy issues on the docket may also move the needle
Aside from the controversies surrounding Trump that the justices may review, this term's court docket is filled with several issues that will have an impact on voters as they prepare to vote next year. Last week, it was announced that a major case involving access to the popular abortion drug mifepristone will be heard.
The court's decision to revisit lower court rulings that restricted access to the drug marks their most significant involvement in the reproductive rights arena since their reversal of Roe v. Wade last year. This ruling energized Democrats in the 2022 midterm elections and will serve as another rallying point for the party as the general election approaches.
Additionally, the court is deliberating a significant Second Amendment case that could offer important direction to lower courts on how to assess gun laws under a new standard set by the conservative majority in 2022. This new standard led some federal judges to invalidate numerous gun laws.
Next month, the justices will consider two cases that seek to overturn longstanding precedents in order to limit the authority of federal agencies. This decision has the potential to restrict the governments ability to implement regulations related to the environment, immigration, and health care.
