Nine months loom until the US presidential elections, but the upcoming hearing this Thursday at the Supreme Court could steer more than just the vote. It stands to shape the political landscape and the future of the country, with ripple effects from the ballot box to boardrooms and beyond. The court will hear arguments in a high-stakes appeal involving Trump and a question about the reach of the 14th Amendment into presidential eligibility.
At 10 a.m. local time in the United States, and 4 p.m. in mainland Spain, the Supreme Court’s nine justices will listen to legal briefs in a case that tests whether former President Trump can be barred from running again under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, a provision rarely invoked in modern times. The court has previously ordered participation in state primary processes, but this case marks a potential redefinition of eligibility standards and the limits of executive eligibility in American history.
The central question is whether the disqualification clause, rarely used in practice, can be applied to a sitting or former president. The decision would represent a watershed moment in the most politically charged era of recent decades, a period marked by sharp partisan divides and intense scrutiny of the presidency. The stakes extend beyond personal reputations; they touch the framework of American democratic norms and electoral integrity in a highly polarized climate.
These elements—legal theory, political consequence, and the real-world impact on elections—define the case. The conflict pits conservative and progressive perspectives on constitutional interpretation, with some conservatives urging disqualification while others resist. The outcome could trigger unexpected consequences, given the current climate and the memory of a violent attack on the Capitol in January 2021. The potential for unrest or far-reaching political disruption makes the decision feel transformative for the nation.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment
Enacted in 1868, shortly after the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment secures citizenship and other key rights. It includes a clause aiming to prevent former Confederates from reclaiming public office, and it allows Congress to remove such disqualification by a two-thirds vote in both chambers. The language speaks of public office and does not explicitly name the presidency, which is a central point of current legal debate.
The text was crafted to bar conspirators from power and to address future uprisings, reflecting a broader intention to safeguard the republic from those who would upend constitutional government. The precise scope of the term “officer” versus “public office” remains a focal dispute in the case.
A point of contention is whether the language targets any public officer or specifically the president, a distinction at the heart of the legal debate.
Case
Last summer, two conservative scholars produced a detailed 126-page analysis of Section 3, arguing that Trump should be disqualified due to actions that challenged the legitimate results of the 2020 election and the Capitol assault on January 6, 2021.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a progressive advocacy group, helped file a lawsuit on behalf of voters in Colorado, asserting a ban on Trump’s candidacy. A state court initially sided with the claim that the former president’s conduct amounted to insurrection; however, the court found that the disqualification clause did not automatically apply to a president, since the clause speaks to offices rather than the presidency itself.
The case moved up through the state system and then reached the national Supreme Court, with the involved parties awaiting a decision from Colorado’s Secretary of State as part of the ongoing process.
Trump’s arguments
The Trump defense puts forward a mix of constitutional and procedural points. It argues that the events of January 6 should not render him ineligible under the disqualification clause, noting there are many legal proceedings against him, including criminal cases, that are separate from eligibility questions. The defense also contends that Trump is not a typical civil servant bound by an oath to the Constitution and asserts that Congress should clarify the 14th Amendment’s application to office-holders. They stress that the states should be free to determine how candidates are selected, and they argue that the mechanism of implementation lies with Congress rather than the judiciary.
The argument extends to the claim that the presidency itself is not covered by the clause, and that the question of eligibility is a matter for legislation rather than a judicial ruling.
Arguments against Trump
Opponents emphasize that Trump’s rhetoric and actions around the Capitol attack undermined democratic processes and fed into misinformation about the election. They point to the use of calls and statements that fueled unrest and to public statements that criticized officials who refused to go along with unfounded fraud claims. The opponents argue that the constitutional language should be read to include the presidency when it comes to public duties and oaths to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution.
They also note that a broad set of briefs argues for disqualification, including scholars who warn that removing a candidate mid-campaign risks undermining trust in the electoral system. In their view, the magnitude of the case requires careful constitutional interpretation to prevent destabilizing political consequences.
Supreme Court’s options
The court faces several possible routes. It could issue a narrowly tailored decision affecting only Colorado or opt for a broader ruling that clarifies the reach of the disqualification clause for federal offices. It might also find that the presidency falls within the clause’s reach, or that Congress should determine the remedy.
The justices could adopt a position that the presidency is or is not covered by the clause, or decide that the question of who should occupy an office lies with Congress, not the courts. Each path carries far-reaching implications for how elections are conducted and how presidential eligibility is interpreted in law.
When can you expect a decision?
The court has allocated time for a thorough hearing, with 40 minutes for Trump’s counsel, 30 minutes for Colorado voters, and 10 minutes for the state’s secretary of state. The oral arguments are anticipated to last two to three hours, after which questions will be weighed to forecast the justices’ leaning. The timing of a ruling remains uncertain, as precedent has shown that announcements may come days after arguments conclude.
Pre-ballot discussions in Colorado began in earnest, with primary and caucus timing in mind. The political stakes here are about more than a single election; they touch on how voters understand eligibility, accountability, and trust in the political process. The broader debate continues as legal scholars, practitioners, and citizens watch how the nation interprets its constitutional commitments.
In this moment, the country watches closely, mindful that the outcome could anchor a new narrative about accountability for those who seek the presidency and about the durability of democratic norms in a volatile political era. The discussion underscores that constitutional interpretation, political climate, and the electoral system are closely intertwined, influencing not only one candidate but the entire pathogenic arc of American democracy.
Note: Citations accompany the analysis to attribute the arguments and positions presented by the parties involved and the scholars who have contributed to the public record.