Trump’s lawyers have made multiple now-rejected arguments as to why Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in the US Constitution does not apply to him.
Section 3 bars “an officer of the United States” who has taken the oath of office and engaged in insurrection from holding public office.
Trump’s lawyers have argued, however, that as president he was “not an officer of the United States” defined under Section 3. So, they say, it doesn’t apply to him.
The other defence Trump’s lawyers have made is that the question of eligibility for presidency is not an issue for the courts to resolve. Instead, they say the Constitution reserves that right for Congress.
Trump’s lawyers have also tried to say that his language on 6 January is protected free speech and that his comments that day don’t make him culpable for engaging in an insurrection.
Robert Tsai, a constitutional law professor from Boston University, told the BBC: “I think Trump’s lawyers are going to have a hard time figuring out what gets five votes” – the total votes needed for a simple majority among the nine justices.
“What’s going to be the opinion that looks the least damaging and overrules the Colorado Supreme Court,” Tsai said – that’s what the Supreme Court judges are going to be looking for, he said.
Emily Foster is a globe-trotting journalist based in the UK. Her articles offer readers a global perspective on international events, exploring complex geopolitical issues and providing a nuanced view of the world’s most pressing challenges.
