U.S. Supreme Court to Review Donald Trump's Eligibility for Presidential Run

On Thursday, February 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments regarding the eligibility of former President Donald Trump, a potential Republican candidate, to run for president again. According to Voice of America, the Court will decide whether Trump is disqualified from the presidential nomination due to his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol. On that day, a number of Trump supporters, believing his claims of election fraud in the November 2020 election, stormed the Capitol to prevent Congress from certifying Joe Biden's victory. Trump argues that the various criminal and civil lawsuits against him are part of Biden's efforts to remove him from the presidential race, a claim that the White House and Democrats deny. The case against Trump, which will be presented on Thursday, addresses whether he should be barred from the Colorado primary elections under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court will consider whether Trump is a rebel who attempted to prevent the peaceful transfer of power and whether he should be disqualified from holding the presidency again under this section. This section, written in 1866 after the Civil War, states that officials from 11 Southern states that seceded to protect the institution of slavery are barred from holding public office. Trump's lawyers argue that Section 3 does not apply to presidents and that the events of January 6 were not an insurrection, but rather an exercise of his free speech rights. In November of last year, a Colorado judge ruled that Trump had engaged in insurrection but decided that Section 3 does not apply to the presidency. This part of the ruling was appealed and later overturned by the Colorado Supreme Court. Several scholars, election officials, lawmakers, and other political figures have filed amicus curiae briefs to share their views for or against Trump. One of them, Mark Graber, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Law and a prominent expert in U.S. constitutional law, argues that the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling aligns with the legal community's understanding of insurrection in Section 3 and correctly concludes that an insurrection occurred. Others, including Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, who, along with 26 other Republican attorneys general, have filed their views, argue that it is up to Congress to determine whether Section 3 applies. Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law professor who defended Trump during his Senate impeachment, shares this view, stating that Congress is the only executive body in this matter. A group of 25 prominent historians, including Allan Lichtman, a distinguished history professor at American University, argued in their report that Trump falls under Section 3 and does not require further action from Congress or a conviction for insurrection. He told Voice of America that the authors of Section 3 intended for it to endure forever and that future Congresses should not be able to manipulate it since it is part of the Constitution. Although the Supreme Court will only decide on the Colorado case, its impact will be far-reaching, including for Maine, which ruled last December that Trump should be removed from the primary elections in that state, as well as ongoing cases in 11 other states challenging his electoral eligibility. The Supreme Court could uphold the Colorado ruling, which would be a blow to Trump's re-election efforts, or it might rule that Trump cannot be disqualified under Section 3, thereby allowing him back on the ballot. The justices may also choose to avoid making a final decision and leave it to lawmakers to decide on Trump's confirmation if he wins the presidential election. Six of the nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican presidents, three of whom were appointed by Trump. However, since this case has almost no legal precedent, predicting individual justices' rulings based on partisan views is difficult.