Former President Donald Trumpā€™s decision to run in 2024 has put the Supreme Court in a difficult position, and several experts weighed in on the matter with Newsweek.

A case challenging Trumpā€™s candidacy under the 14th Amendmentā€™s disqualification clause is heading to next weekā€™s judicial conference, and legal analysts say it could put the high court in a tough spot to weigh in on electoral politicsā€”a subject matter the Supreme Court has, for the most part, stayed away from.

In a lawsuit filed earlier this month, long-shot GOP presidential candidate John Castro is arguing that Trumpā€™s allegedly unconstitutional candidacy will cause him ā€œa political competitive injury in the form a diminution of votes.ā€ Under the 14th Amendment, individuals who have ā€œengaged in insurrection or rebellionā€ against the U.S. are prohibited from holding public office. Castro claims that Trumpā€™s role in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot falls under the clause.

ā€œThe Trump ballot case may be the Supreme Courtā€™s toughest yet,ā€ former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyer Neama Rahmani told Newsweek. ā€œMany of Trumpā€™s cases have been unprecedented, but this one more so, because there is so little legal precedent on which to rely on, and most of it dates back to the Civil War.ā€

ā€œIn the unlikely event that the Justices actually disqualify Trump from running for president, that decision may be met with massive protests and civil unrest,ā€ Rahmani said. ā€œTheyā€™re going to have to decide for the first time who has standing to bring a 14th Amendment, Section 3 challenge, and whether the provision has any teeth.ā€

Bruce Peabody, a politics professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University, told Newsweek that while the justices will have to address Trumpā€™s candidacy under the statute at some point, this may not be the case where theyā€™ll rule on the former presidentā€™s eligibility to run for the White House.

ā€œ[The justices] like to intervene when thereā€™s legal uncertainty surrounding an issue, especially from dueling lower court decisions,ā€ Peabody said. ā€œWe donā€™t have that on the question of Trumpā€™s eligibility, at least not yet. The justices have so many flexible doctrines available to dump this case off their laps, itā€™s hard to imagine they wonā€™t live to fight another day.ā€

If the Supreme Court did take up Castroā€™s case, their decision would be limited to whether or not Castro had standingā€”whether a plaintiff is the appropriate person to bring a legal challenge or someone who has suffered harm or injury in a real wayā€”rather than Trumpā€™s ability to run for office. If they sided with Castro, the case would be sent back down to the trial courts to hear whether Trump could be barred from running for office.

The Supreme Court will mostly likely proceed with caution since ā€œThe Court often deems these disputes ā€˜political questionsā€™ that do not have any kind of judicially discoverable outcome and instead should be left to the political processes to decide,ā€ Alex Badas, a political scientist focused on judicial politics, said.

ā€œThe only way that the Supreme Court would take up one of Castroā€™s cases is if there is a Circuit split,ā€ he told Newsweek.

Although Castro has filed multiple lawsuits across different jurisdictions in at least 14 states, Badas said it would be unlikely for any of them to result in a circuit split where one or more appeals court offers conflicting decisions on the same legal issue.

Constitutional lawyer Kent Greenfield agreed, pointing out that the Supreme Court will likely wait to see what lower courts do since the only ruling on any 14th Amendment case, has answered the question about whether the lawsuits have standing.

Greenfield told Newsweek he would be ā€œshockedā€ if the justices granted standing on the case.

ā€œThere are several other serious cases in the lower courtsā€”most notably the one filed recently in Colorado, using circuit precedent written by Gorsuch when he was on the circuit court,ā€ he said. ā€œI think the Court will wait to see what the lower courts do and will only wade into this serious and divisive issue if there is a split among the circuits. Or, if we get to the spring and there is an important primary state in which Trump has been taken off the ballot, I could imagine the Court stepping in at that point.ā€

ā€œEither way, we have some months before the Court gets involved. We will need to watch what happens in the lower courts,ā€ Greenfield said.

  • microphone900@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    Ā·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    14th Amendment, Section 3

    No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    • Skyketcher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      Ā·
      1 year ago

      Itā€™s silly but there is a constitutional debate on if this applies to the president. The only group that Trump falls under is ā€œas an officer of the United Statesā€ and people are debating on if that technical applies to the President.

      There are enough technicalities and the SC almost certainly does not want to rule on this. If the SC has to rule on this, Trump will be allowed on the ballot (unfortunately) and the SC will not make a ruling on if Trump did or did not engage in insurrection.