Two conservative law professors, William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas, have explored the legal implications surrounding Donald Tump’s eligibility to run for an elected office. This inquiry focuses particularly on the implications arising from the events of January 6th, the day known for the Capitol insurrection. According to their findings, unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant Trump amnesty for his alleged conduct on that day, he wouldn’t be eligible to run for president or hold office. The reason being Section Three of the 14th Amendment, prohibiting any individual who had previously taken an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and then ‘engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof’ from holding any government office.
In an article published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, the professors elaborate their findings, stating that “The bottom line is that Donald Trump both ‘engaged in’ ‘insurrection or rebellion’ and gave ‘aid or comfort’ to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.”
While this analysis may not have immediate practical implications for Trump, who is seen as a key prospective Republican candidate in the 2024 nomination for president, the scholars emphasize the necessity to adhere to Section 3’s disqualification rule by those tasked with determining candidates’ legal qualifications for office.
Such an interpretation of Section Three of the 14th Amendment is likely to cause a political question, possibly diverging from the strictly legal analysis of this constitutional provision. However, the detailed interpretation provided by the academics could potentially catalyze lawsuits from other candidates and ordinary voters, arguing Trump’s ineligibility for office based on the constitutional grounds. The possibility of this emerging as a vital constitutional issue that the Supreme Court might want to hear and decide upon was also mentioned by Professor Paulsen.
However, considering the current ideological split in the Supreme Court, it remains uncertain to what extent this legal perspective would influence Trump’s potential future bid for presidency.