CHICAGO (CN) — Former President Donald Trump appealed a Cook County judge's ruling that removed him from the 2024 ballot just hours after the decision was issued Wednesday night.
Cook County Judge Tracie Porter's ruling contradicted the decision from the state Board of Elections, which voted unanimously on Jan. 31 to keep Trump on the ballot despite the concerns of a group of voters. The voters filed an objection to Trump's candidacy on the basis of the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment, a tactic used by other voters in the swath of states fighting over whether Trump is qualified to run.
Porter's ruling, however, is on hold pending a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard arguments in a similar case this month. Her new order issued Thursday states Trump will appear on the ballot until the appeal is resolved.
"The Colorado case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court and the oral argument suggested quite strongly that the justices are going to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court's decision on the basis that states do not have authority to declare presidential candidates ineligible on section 3 grounds," said Jason Mazzone, the director of the constitutional theory program at the University of Illinois law school.
Steven Schwinn, a constitutional law professor and associate dean at the law school of the University of Illinois Chicago, said the Supreme Court’s top concern appears to be resolving the existing patchwork system where states make election decisions.
Schwinn said many conservative justices emphasized the importance of states’ rights in other cases, so the change in perspective is inconsistent, considering the precedent the court has established. “I am puzzled by that,” he said.
Before Porter's Thursday order, Trump argued in his appeal that the ruling should be paused beyond Friday, in case an appellate court doesn't reach a decision by then.
"Staying the judgment until the Illinois appellate courts finally decide this case would reduce the great risk of voter confusion and logistical difficulties for election officials," Adam Merrill, one of Trump's lawyers, wrote in the appeal.
Porter agreed, finding her ruling should be paused until the matter is resolved by the appellate court, the Illinois Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court.
Merrill noted that the request is almost identical to the Colorado Supreme Court's relief in Anderson v. Griswold. In that case, the ruling was stayed pending appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court; until the justices issue a ruling, Trump’s name must remain on the primary ballot and the same now holds true in Illinois.
Porter relied heavily on the logic used by the Colorado Supreme Court in determining whether the insurrection clause applies to Trump.
Trump's attorneys previously argued that the insurrection clause doesn't apply to the president and cited the Constitution's impeachment requirements for the “president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States.”
They argued that since the president and vice president are listed separately there, the insurrection clause doesn't cover them.
Porter wrote that she examined "the meanings of the words 'office,' 'officers,' 'insurrection, 'engaged' and 'oath'," and concluded that "the plain language and plain meanings of Section 3, applies to the former president now seeking to hold office again as the president of the United States."
Section 3 is part of the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause.
After Porter issued the initial ruling that kicked Trump off the Illinois ballot, the Trump campaign called it an unconstitutional political move.
"The Soros-funded Democrat front-groups continue to attempt to interfere in the election and deny President Trump his rightful place on the ballot. Today, an activist Democrat judge in Illinois summarily overruled the state's board of elections and contradicted earlier decisions from dozens of other state and federal jurisdictions," Steven Cheung, a spokesperson with the Trump campaign, said in a statement Wednesday.
Constitutional law professor Schwinn said this has been made into a political issue because of Trump himself. He noted how Trump has been a champion of states’ rights, until those rights don’t work in his favor.
“[Judge Porter] is not acting politically,” Schwinn said. “This is a reasoned decision, and to lodge ad-hominem attacks against her is just inconsistent and transparently disingenuous.”
Supreme Court justices indicated that they could rule as soon as March 5 — Super Tuesday, when 16 states hold primary elections.
Follow @RosenCaitlyn
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.
