Trump’s Eligibility for Presidential Run Amid Legal Challenges

In the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, former President Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for president has been challenged in various states. The legal issue stems from Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was designed to prevent former Confederates from regaining government power after the Civil War. This clause states that no person who engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States can hold any office, civil or military, under the federal or state government.

Colorado’s Supreme Court was the first court to apply this constitutional ban to a presidential candidate, ruling that Trump was ineligible to run for his old job in that state. Maine’s Democratic secretary of state followed suit, striking Trump from the ballot under the same provision. However, both decisions are currently on hold as the legal process unfolds, and there is increasing pressure on the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify whether Trump can still run for president.

The legal challenges against Trump’s eligibility have been met with various arguments. Trump’s lawyers argue that it is unclear whether Section 3 applies to the presidency, that this is a political question best decided by voters, and that judges are violating Trump’s rights to a fair legal procedure by ruling him ineligible without a fact-finding process. They also contend that Jan. 6 was not an insurrection but rather a riot.

On the other hand, those seeking to disqualify Trump argue that the case is straightforward: Jan. 6 was an insurrection, Trump incited it, and he should be disqualified. Most judges have dismissed these lawsuits on various grounds, including the lack of authority for courts to dictate which candidates should be on primary ballots.

The legal challenges against Trump’s eligibility have raised concerns about potential chaos in the upcoming election. If the Supreme Court does not resolve the issue, it could lead to uncertainty in November or even in January 2025 if Trump were to win the election. In such a scenario, Democrats might question whether they should seat Trump or declare him ineligible under Section 3.

Maine’s decision to bar Trump from the primary ballot was particularly notable due to the state’s unique process. In Maine, a secretary of state is required to hold a public hearing on challenges to politicians’ spots on the ballot and then issue a ruling. Multiple groups of Maine voters, including a bipartisan group of former state lawmakers, filed a challenge, triggering Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows’ decision. Critics argue that this precedent could allow election officials in every state to disqualify candidates based on novel legal theories about Section 3.

The issue of Trump’s eligibility for the presidency has become a partisan topic, with some arguing that Section 3 could also apply to Vice President Kamala Harris. However, courts do not always align along partisan lines, as evidenced by the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling, which had three Democratic appointees dissenting.

As the legal challenges against Trump’s eligibility continue, the outcome remains uncertain. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on this matter could have significant implications for the 2024 presidential election and beyond.