The U.S. Supreme Court faces mounting pressure to intervene in the efforts in multiple states to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot. After Colorado’s Supreme Court ruled President Trump be taken off the ballot, Maine’s secretary of state decreed so as well. Both have put their decisions on hold pending further appeals.
Both the Maine and Colorado decisions are based on the argument that President Trump engaged in insurrection by challenging the results of the 2020 election and riling up his supporters ahead of the “Stop the Steal” rally and subsequent riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Waging an insurrection, in turn, would be grounds for disqualification from office under the 14th Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court is likely to reject such argument, several constitutional experts previously told The Epoch Times. But by doing so, the court would insert itself into the election—which most of the justices are likely to want to avoid.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in particular, tries to dodge overly political decisions, and even more so those affecting elections, according to Horace Cooper, senior fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research, who formerly taught constitutional law at George Mason University.
Some of the more senior and more conservative justices would also prefer to avoid actions that would harken back to the Court’s involvement in the 2000 election, he added.
“Many of the justices say that they are very unhappy with what happened to their reputation because they did that. If you ask them, would they like to do this again? Most of the justices, including the chief justice, will tell you ‘no,’” Mr. Cooper previously told The Epoch Times.
There appears to be a consensus among legal scholars, however, that the highest court will have to pick up the disqualification issue.
The Trump disqualification effort, spearheaded by Democrat officials and Democrat-aligned legal outfits, has produced a hodgepodge of contradictory state and federal rulings not just in Colorado and Maine, but increasingly across the nation. The Supreme Court appears to be the only institution capable of clearing up the 14th Amendment application.
“The Supreme Court is highly likely to take this case fairly quickly,” Mr. Cooper said.
Nonetheless, he predicted that Chief Justice Roberts would try to keep the court’s involvement at a minimum.
“He’s going to try to do it in the narrowest way possible so that it is not a determination where [the Court’s] decided who can be a candidate and who cannot be a candidate,” he said.
The court has already picked up a case that could have a significant impact on the election.
On Dec. 13, it accepted the petition of Joseph Fischer, who was charged with “obstruction of an official proceeding” for his participation in the Jan. 6 incident.
Special counsel Jack Smith charged President Trump with the same crime and it makes up about half of his case.
Some experts predicted the Supreme Court may interpret the law more narrowly, rendering it inapplicable to the Jan. 6 defendants. That could make it inapplicable to President Trump as well.
Even if the Supreme Court doesn’t rule in President Trump’s favor, the proceeding could delay his trial until after the election, annulling its political urgency.
In addition, the court declined to quickly decide whether President Trump’s efforts to challenge the 2020 election were covered by executive privilege. Even though the Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit is looking into the matter, Mr. Smith asked the Supreme Court to pick it up on an expedited basis in an apparent effort to speed up the case, which is still scheduled to go to trial on March 4.
Several legal experts, including Mr. Cooper, have told The Epoch Times the trial not only won’t start on that date, but could get delayed until after the election, since after the D.C. Circuit’s 3-judge panel ruling, either side will have an opportunity to appeal to the full circuit and, after that, to the Supreme Court.
It was predictable for the Supreme Court to decline Mr. Smith’s request, Mr. Cooper said.
“Nothing in the brief that Smith filed explained why there was any urgent need to bypass regular order. That failure then leaves the impression that the only reason for the appeal is the proposed trial deadline. Trial deadlines are not a reason for the Supreme Court to intervene.”
