In a landmark case that has captured the attention of the nation, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on Thursday regarding the disqualification of former President Donald Trump from future office due to his alleged involvement in the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol. This high-stakes hearing comes as the Supreme Court reviews a significant decision made by the Colorado Supreme Court, which determined that Trump's actions fell under the scope of the 14th Amendment's 'insurrectionist ban.'
What began as a fringe idea has gradually gained traction and transformed into a substantial legal challenge against one of the most resilient political figures in recent history. The legal theory behind the disqualification lawsuit emerged from a paper published by Indiana University law professor Gerard Magliocca, who explored the historical enforcement of the 'insurrectionist ban' against former Confederates following the Civil War. Magliocca inadvertently entered the public discourse just days before the Capitol attack occurred.
Liberal-leaning advocacy groups, including Citizen for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and Free Speech For People, seized upon this legal theory and launched an effort to educate the public about the often-overlooked 14th Amendment provision. They pursued test cases during the 2022 midterm elections, aiming to establish legal precedence and identify states with laws that could support their efforts. Their work even garnered some bipartisan support, particularly from the House January 6 committee.
Despite facing significant obstacles, including strong opposition and skepticism, these organizations managed to make strides in their litigation efforts. One notable victory came in New Mexico, where an individual convicted of a January 6 offense was disqualified from office under the 14th Amendment. Moreover, in December 2022, the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack recommended Trump's disqualification from future office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
The legal battle intensified in 2023, as conservative members of the Federalist Society endorsed Trump's disqualification, and the issue gained further prominence leading up to the 2024 presidential cycle. Eventually, CREW decided to file a lawsuit in Colorado, where the state's election laws provided the most favorable grounds for their challenge. Remarkably, their case proceeded rapidly, moving from filing in September to a trial in October and ultimately receiving a ruling in November from Judge Sarah Wallace. Although Wallace ruled in favor of disqualifying Trump, she determined that the ban did not apply to the presidency due to an interpretation of the wording in the text.
However, the Colorado Supreme Court overturned Wallace's decision in December, ruling that Trump's disqualification was warranted and that the disqualification clause indeed covered the presidency. This unexpected ruling sent shockwaves through the political landscape, leading Trump to appeal the decision to the US Supreme Court, which will begin oral arguments on Thursday.
Predictably, the case has divided Democrats, with some supporting the legal challenge and others advocating for allowing voters to decide
