WASHINGTON (CN) — Donald Trump urged the Supreme Court on Thursday to reinstate his placement on Colorado’s primary ballot, arguing his disqualification was unconstitutional.
The former president’s brief before the high court previews arguments the justices will hear early next month when reviewing a Colorado Supreme Court ruling barring Trump from the ballot.
Trump told the justices they needed to reverse the state court ruling to prevent Colorado and 30 other states from using dubious interpretations of the Constitution to disqualify him from upcoming elections.
“The court should put a swift and decisive end to these ballot-disqualification efforts, which threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans and which promise to unleash chaos and bedlam if other state courts and state officials follow Colorado’s lead and exclude the likely Republican presidential nominee from their ballots,” wrote Jonathan Mitchell, an attorney with Mitchell Law.
Mitchell, who is representing Trump before the high court, is known as the architect of Texas’ bounty hunter abortion law, which the high court upheld prior to overturning Roe v. Wade.
Trump claims that he should be reinstated on the ballot because presidents aren’t subject to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, or the Disqualification Clause. This reasoning stems from the idea that presidents are not officers of the United States under the Constitution because they take a different oath than other elected officials.
“It is undisputed that President Trump never took such an oath as a member of Congress, as a state legislator, or as a state executive or judicial officer,” Mitchell wrote. “So Section 3 cannot apply to President Trump unless the president qualifies as an ‘officer of the United States’ within the meaning of the Constitution.”
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was drafted to prevent former Confederate officers from holding office again. The Disqualification Clause blocks anyone from holding federal or state political office who had violated their oath to support the Constitution by engaging in an insurrection.
The Civil War era penalty has been revived in the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection. Section 3 has already been cited to remove individuals from local government positions but now several states have moved to use the 14th Amendment to prevent Trump from returning to office.
Even if he were subject to Section 3, Trump says he still should not be disqualified because he did not engage in an insurrection.
“The court should also reverse because nothing that President Trump did in response to the 2020 election or on January 6, 2021, even remotely qualifies as ‘insurrection,’” Mitchell wrote.
In his brief, Trump advances his claims that he called for a peaceful protest on Jan. 6, not an insurrection. A Colorado state court held a trial in the voters' effort to remove the former president from the ballot and found that Trump did engage in an insurrection on Jan. 6. The Colorado Supreme Court used the lower court’s ruling to remove Trump from the ballot using the 14th Amendment.
Trump and the Colorado Republican party have asked the Supreme Court to reverse, claiming the state high court erred in disqualifying Trump. The Supreme Court agreed to review Trump’s case and set argument for Feb. 8.
Trump says the court reasoned that his failure to respond when the Capitol was breached proved he was complicit. He claims this finding is wrong because failure to act does not equate to engaging in an insurrection.
“None of President Trump’s actions that the Colorado Supreme Court described come anywhere close to ‘insurrection,’” Mitchell wrote.
“Raising concerns about the integrity of the recent federal election and pointing to reports of fraud and irregularity is not an act of violence or a threat of force. And giving a passionate political speech and telling supporters to metaphorically ‘fight like hell’ for their beliefs is not insurrection either.”
Trump also claims that enforcing Section 3 should be left to Congress. This argument suggests state courts and officials do not have the authority to enforce the clause.
Follow @KelseyReichmann
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
School shooter resentenced April 17, 2024 -
-
-
Biden revives Venezuela oil sanctions April 17, 2024