As Donald Trump remains a powerful contender in the Republican presidential primary, several liberal organizations and legal authorities argue that a little-referenced clause in the Constitution might prohibit him from running again due to the events surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack.
The 14th Amendment’s specific wording disallows anyone from holding office if they had previously sworn to protect the Constitution but later participated in or supported an insurrection against it. A rising tide of legal thinkers believes this clause pertains to Trump, given his alleged involvement in the 2020 election disputes and subsequent Capitol riots.
Two progressive nonprofit organizations have vowed to legally challenge any attempts by states to feature Trump on the ballot, despite these constitutional concerns.
This stance is anticipated to initiate a cascade of legal battles and subsequent appeals across various states, potentially reaching the U.S. Supreme Court during the heart of the 2024 primary elections. This introduces another layer of legal complexity to an already tumultuous nomination process, especially with Trump dealing with multiple legal issues.
The legitimacy of Trump’s candidacy might be debated as the Republican nomination process unfolds, commencing with the Iowa caucuses.
Gerard Magliocca, a legal academic from Indiana University, speculated on the repercussions of different state rulings before a definitive Supreme Court decision, considering the implications if Trump’s eligibility varies per state.
Although formal legal challenges might be delayed until states finalize their primary ballots around October, a law review article by renowned conservative legal scholars, William Baude and Michael Paulsen, has brought attention to the matter. Their argument centers on the third section of the 14th Amendment, which they believe clearly disqualifies Trump from future office.
During a recent Republican debate, former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson hinted at the possibility of this clause affecting Trump’s eligibility.
Previously in 2021, the Free Speech For People nonprofit reached out to election officials across the U.S., suggesting a consideration to prevent Trump from contesting future presidential elections. The group’s legal lead, Ron Fein, emphasized the need for vigilance against those who betray their constitutional oath.
Before the 2022 mid-terms, the same group launched legal action against two Republican representatives, Marjorie Taylor-Greene and Madison Cawthorn, accusing them of supporting the Jan. 6 incident. Legal outcomes varied, with Greene being exonerated, while Cawthorn’s case became irrelevant following his primary defeat.
Differing interpretations of the clause have emerged from various states. For instance, Adrian Fontes, Arizona’s Secretary of State, suggested that only Congress could exclude someone from the state’s presidential ballot. However, other states are treading cautiously around this legal conundrum.
While Trump views these endeavours as a form of “election interference,” echoing his stance on criminal charges he faces in several states, legal challenges continue. A recent complaint in New Hampshire, filed by Republican candidate John Anthony Castro, asserts that the 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump from the state’s ballot.
Regardless of individual state decisions, major legal challenges are on the horizon. Some, like conservative professor Michael McConnell, express concerns about the broader political implications of invoking the 14th Amendment in this context.
Introduced in 1868, the 14th Amendment was foundational for civil rights but also acted as a mechanism to exclude former Confederate officials from the government. This clause, though sparingly applied, offers a precedent that continues to echo in contemporary debates.
If Trump is denied a place on any state’s ballot, he will likely contest it, possibly propelling the case to the Supreme Court. If he remains unopposed, organizations such as Free Speech For People and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington are expected to challenge his candidacy.
Legal experts stress the importance of the Supreme Court providing clarity before the general elections to avoid further democratic upheaval. Advocates of invoking the 14th Amendment believe the Constitution’s requirements are unambiguous and integral to preserving democracy.
The debate around Trump’s potential 2024 candidacy shines a light on the complexities and ambiguities of constitutional clauses and their modern interpretations. While the 14th Amendment was birthed from a different era’s challenges, its relevance today underscores the living nature of the U.S. Constitution. As the nation watches the legal tug-of-war around Trump’s eligibility unfold, it serves as a poignant reminder of the enduring power of historical precedents in shaping contemporary political landscapes.
