Which states have Trump ballot disqualification challenges?
More than a dozen states have pending legal challenges over Trump’s ballot eligibility.
At least 16 state courts and secretaries of state have already concluded his name can appear on the ballot. Colorado and Maine are the only two so far to keep his name off.
Other states are saying stay tuned. The Oregon Supreme Court earlier this year dismissed a related lawsuit but told a coalition of voters that, based on what the U.S. Supreme Court decides, they can refile again.
States with pending challenges to Trump’s ballot eligibility include Alaska, California, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin, Vermont and Virginia.
However, more than two dozens states have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, urging the justices to keep Trump on the Colorado Republican presidential ballot.
The attorneys general of Indiana, West Virginia and 25 other states, warned the court that the move by the Colorado Supreme Court to declare Trump an “insurrectionist” under the Fourteenth Amendment “has vast consequences that reach far beyond Colorado.”
The states argue that state-imposed restrictions have a national consequence in this instance and the ruling “threatens to throw the 2024 election into chaos.”
“Voters who may wish to cast their ballots for former President Trump cannot know whether he ultimately will be excluded from the ballot in their State or others. They may wonder whether a little non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel is all it takes for former President Trump to be excluded from ballots across the Nation,” they said.
Fox News’ Shannon Bream, Bill Mears and Fox News Digital’s Adam Shaw contributed to this update.
Jack Smith’s cases against Trump
Former President Donald Trump was indicted on June 9, 2023, on 37 federal counts as part of special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into classified documents. Trump pleaded not guilty.
The unsealed indictment reads, “Over the course of his presidency, TRUMP gathered newspapers, press clippings, letters, notes, cards, photographs, official documents, and other materials in cardboard boxes that he kept in the White House. Among the material TRUMP stored in his boxes were hundreds of classified documents.”
The indictment went on to read, “The classified documents TRUMP stored in his boxes included information regarding defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries; United States nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack; and plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack.”
On Aug. 1, 2023, Trump was again indicted by a federal grand jury. The former president and 2024 GOP frontrunner was charged with “conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to disenfranchise voters and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding.”
Meet the attorneys arguing the Colorado Trump ballot case: Jonathan Mitchell
Jonathan F. Mitchell is the attorney representing former President Donald Trump in Thursday’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court.
Mitchell, 47, is a conservative lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court five times previously. He obtained his law degree from the University of Chicago law school, where he was editor of The University of Chicago Law Review and a member of the Order of the Coif, according to his biography on the Federalist Society’s website.
Mitchell is a former Justice Antonin Scalia clerk and also clerked for conservative federal appellate Judge Michael Luttig. The now-retired Luttig filed an amicus brief supporting ballot disqualification for Trump.
In 2010 Mitchell was appointed Solicitor General of Texas and remained in that position until 2015. After leaving the Texas Solicitor General’s Office, he taught law at the University of Texas School of Law before joining the Hoover Institution as a Visiting Fellow from 2015 to 2016.
“Mr. Mitchell has published numerous works of scholarship in top-10 law journals, and he has written articles on textualism, national-security law, criminal law and procedure, judicial review and judicial federalism, and the legality of stare decisis in constitutional adjudication,” his biography states.
“Mr. Mitchell has argued five times before the Supreme Court of the United States, and more than 20 times in the federal courts of appeals. He has also argued before Supreme Court of Texas and in numerous trial courts. Mr. Mitchell has authored the principal merits brief in eight Supreme Court cases, and has written and submitted more than 20 amicus curiae briefs in the Supreme Court.”
Mitchell is perhaps best known for devising the novel enforcement mechanism in Texas’ “fetal heartbeat” abortion ban, which was among the strongest pro-life laws in the nation before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, permitting states to ban the procedure.
Who are the 9 Supreme Court justices?
John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice
Nominated to the bench in 2005 by former President George W. Bush, John Roberts graduated from Harvard Law School. Prior to joining the Supreme Court, Roberts served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, as an associate counsel to former President Ronald Reagan and in the White House Counsel’s Office in the 1980s.
Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice
From Pin Point, Ga., Clarence Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court in 1991. He was appointed by former President George H.W. Bush.
Thomas attended seminary school before graduating from Holy Cross College and Yale Law School, according to his court biography.
Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice
Samuel Alito, Jr., has served on the Supreme Court since 2006 after he was nominated by former President George W. Bush. Alito is a Republican.
Born in New Jersey, Alito attended Princeton University and Yale Law School.
Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice
Sonia Sotomayor received Princeton University’s highest academic honor when she graduated and now she sits on the nation’s highest court. Sotomayor was nominated by former President Barack Obama in 2009. Sotomayor attended Yale University.
Elena Kagan, Associate Justice
Elena Kagan has served on the Supreme Court since 2010. She was nominated by former President Barack Obama.
Kagan has degrees from Princeton University, Oxford University and Harvard Law School.
Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice
Neil Gorsuch joined the Supreme Court in 2017. He was President Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee. He graduated from Columbia University, Harvard Law School and Oxford University.
Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice
Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in as the 114th Supreme Court justice on Oct. 6, 2018.
Kavanaugh is a graduate of Yale Law School and a former clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose retirement from the nation’s highest court left the open seat on the bench Kavanaugh will fill.
Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice
Amy Coney Barrett has served on the Supreme Court since 2020. She was appointed by former President Trump
Barrett is a graduate of Rhodes College and Notre Dame Law School. She previously served for Justice Antonin Scalia.
Ketanji Brown Jackson, Associate Justice
Ketanji Brown Jackson was appointed to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice by President Joe Biden in 2022.
She received a degree from Harvard-Radcliffe College and Harvard Law School.
What is at issue in the Colorado ballot access case against Trump?
Whether former President Donald Trump is ineligible to run for president because of his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot is not the only question the Supreme Court will consider during oral argument.
Also at issue:
– Whether state courts or elected state officials can unilaterally enforce constitutional provisions and declare candidates ineligible for federal office — so-called “self-executing” authority — or is that exclusively the jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress. Also, whether Trump can be disqualified without a thorough fact-finding or criminal trial.
– Whether this issue is a purely “political” one that voters should ultimately decide.
– Whether the U.S. Senate’s acquittal at his impeachment trial over Jan. 6 makes him therefore eligible to seek re-election.
– And whether Section 3 prohibits individuals only from “holding” office, not from “seeking or winning” election to office.
Fox News’ Shannon Bream and Bill Mears contributed to this update.
What are the arguments in Trump v. Anderson?
The title of the case at issue in today’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court is Trump v. Anderson.
Trump’s legal team in its merits brief said, “The [Supreme] Court should put a swift and decisive end to these ballot-disqualification efforts, which threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans and which promise to unleash chaos and bedlam if other state courts and state officials follow Colorado’s lead and exclude the likely Republican presidential nominee from their ballots.”
The Constitution treats the presidency separately from other federal officers, Trump’s team argued.
“The president swears a different oath set forth in Article II, in which he promises to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States’ — and in which the word ‘support’ is nowhere to be found,” like it appears in Section 3, Trump’s team wrote.
But lawyers for the Colorado voters challenging Trump’s eligibility said in response, “The thrust of Trump’s position is less legal than it is political. He not-so-subtly threatens ‘bedlam’ if he is not on the ballot. But we already saw the ‘bedlam’ Trump unleashed when he was on the ballot and lost. Section 3 is designed precisely to avoid giving oath-breaking insurrectionists like Trump the power to unleash such mayhem again.
“Nobody, not even a former President, is above the law,” the brief added, comparing Trump to a “mob boss.”
Fox News’ Shannon Bream and Bill Mears contributed to this update.
What does Section 3 of the 14th Amendment say about insurrection?
The 14th Amendment, Section 3 of the Constitution states, “No person shall… hold any office… under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States… to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
Colorado’s highest court in December ruled that clause covers Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, and therefore does apply to a president despite not being explicitly indicated in the text.
“President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president,” the state court wrote in an unsigned opinion. “Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the election code for the secretary to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.”
The issue could turn on whether the high court interprets “officer of the United States” to apply to a president’s conduct in office.
Fox News’ Shannon Bream and Bill Mears contributed to this update.
Trump attorneys ask SCOTUS to ‘protect the rights’ of tens of millions who wish to vote for Trump
In a written brief filed Monday, Trump’s attorneys made references to the Iowa caucus, the Gettysburg Address, and Venezuela’s government in slamming Colorado’s high court ruling removing him from the ballot.
“President Donald J. Trump won the Iowa caucuses with the largest margin ever for a non-incumbent and the New Hampshire primary with the most votes of any candidate from either party. He is the presumptive Republican nominee and the leading candidate for President of the United States,” the Trump legal team wrote.
“In our system of ‘government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people,’ … the American people — not courts or election officials — should choose the next President of the United States … Yet at a time when the United States is threatening sanctions against the socialist dictatorship in Venezuela for excluding the leading opposition candidate for president from the ballot, respondent Anderson asks this Court to impose that same anti-democratic measure at home.”
Trump’s attorneys emphasized that 60 state and federal courts nationwide have refused to remove the former president from the ballot, calling the Colorado Supreme Court “the lone outlier.” They ask the Supreme Court to reverse the Colorado ruling “and protect the rights of the tens of millions of Americans who wish to vote for President Trump.”
Fox News’ Shannon Bream and Bill Mears contributed to this update.
Trump decision split Colorado Supreme Court along elite East Coast law schools, Denver Law lines
The decision to disqualify former President Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot over the Jan. 6 Capitol riot split the Colorado Supreme Court not along party lines, but by law schools.
The four Colorado Supreme Court justices who ruled Trump ineligible for the White House under the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause and removed him from the state’s presidential primary ballot all attended Ivy League institutions or otherwise a top-ranked elite law school on the East Coast for law school.
The three dissenting justices, meanwhile, all graduated from the University of Denver’s law school, Jason Willick, a Washington Post columnist, pointed out in a post on X.
The decision from a court whose justices were all appointed by Democratic governors marks the first time in history that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate, setting up today’s showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether the front-runner for the GOP nomination can remain in the race.
Fox News Digital’s Danielle Wallace contributed to this update.
Background: Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from 2024 ballot
In December, the Colorado Supreme Court disqualified former President Donald Trump from appearing on the state’s ballots in 2024.
The disqualification, which was made under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, was related to the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.
In a 4-3 ruling, the state court found Trump engaged in an “insurrection” by inciting his supporters to storm the Capitol building, which made him ineligible to hold federal office under a Civil War-era provision of the Constitution.
“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” the court’s majority wrote. “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”
Trump’s campaign immediately vowed to appeal the decision.
“Unsurprisingly, the all-Democrat appointed Colorado Supreme Court has ruled against President Trump, supporting a Soros-funded, left-wing group’s scheme to interfere in an election on behalf of Crooked Joe Biden by removing President Trump’s name from the ballot and eliminating the rights of Colorado voters to vote for the candidate of their choice. Democrat Party leaders are in a state of paranoia over the growing, dominant lead President Trump has amassed in the polls. They have lost faith in the failed Biden presidency and are now doing everything they can to stop the American voters from throwing them out of office next November,” campaign spokesman Steven Cheung wrote in a statement at the time.
“The Colorado Supreme Court issued a completely flawed decision tonight and we will swiftly file an appeal to the United States Supreme Court and a concurrent request for a stay of this deeply undemocratic decision. We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these unAmerican lawsuits,” he added.
Fox News Digital’s Bill Mears and Adam Sabes contributed to this update.
Oral arguments in Trump ballot removal case to begin at 10 a.m. ET
The U.S. Supreme Court will debate today whether former President Donald Trump should be removed from Colorado’s primary ballot, the first of what could be several legal challenges against Trump to confront the nine justices.
At issue is whether Trump committed “insurrection” by inciting a crowd to storm the U.S. Capitol Jan. 6, 2021, and whether that would make him constitutionally ineligible to be re-elected president. That, in turn, could block him from appearing on a state primary ballot as a candidate for that office.
Oral arguments are scheduled for Thursday at 10 a.m. ET, and an expedited ruling could come within days or weeks. Spectators began lining up outside the U.S. Supreme Court building on Wednesday with blankets and chairs, hoping to secure one of the few seats reserved for the public.
These issues have never been tested at the nation’s highest court and are framed as both a constitutional and political fight with enormous stakes for public confidence in the judicial system and the already divisive electoral process.
Fox News’ Shannon Bream and Bill Mears contributed to this update.
