Thursday, February 8, marked another significant day at the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The Court heard oral arguments for the Trump v. Anderson case, an appeal from former President Donald Trump challenging whether states can remove him from their election ballots under the 14th Amendment, Section 3, known as the “insurrection clause”.
Marissa Zupancic, a third-year law student at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law and Senior Editor at JURIST, was present in the courtroom for this significant hearing. The case’s unprecedented nature rests on the fact that this is the first time the “insurrection clause” will be assessed by the nation’s highest court since it was ratified after the Civil War.
An explainer written by Zupancic leading to the oral arguments provides an insightful analysis of Trump’s submissions, the Colorado voters’ arguments, efforts by other states to remove Trump from their ballots, and the singular nature of the case.
JURIST’s Washington DC Correspondent provides a vivid account of the Court’s atmosphere on the day of the hearing, describing the press section and her anticipation. The courtroom’s exquisite detailing, the arrival of the justices and the proceedings leading to the central case were all part of an apprehensive yet patient wait.
Two opinions were announced before the primary hearing, including Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz and Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC.
The courtroom’s layout resulted in obstructed views for members of the press. Given this, Zupancic recounted identifying the justice speaking at a given moment by comparing notes later with the audio recording of the proceedings and catching short glimpses of the justices through the limitations of the press section.
Trump’s legal counsel, Jonathan Mitchell, provided short opening remarks, outlining reasons why the Court should reverse Colorado Supreme Court’s removal of Trump from its ballot, contending that it effectively disenfranchises millions of voters who want to vote for him. Justice Clarence Thomas, known for his history of seldom asking questions, broke his silence by asking whether Section 3 is “self-executing“, indicating if states have authority to enforce Section 3 without Congressional authorization.
Mitchell’s reliance on Griffin’s Case, a federal circuit case from 1869 concerning the “insurrection clause”, was countered by Justice Sonia Sotomayor who pointed out that it wasn’t precedential and Justice Salmon Chase (at that time) subsequently stated that Congress need not pass law for enforcement of Section 3.
Facing heavy skepticism by several justices, including Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the legal counsel for Colorado voters, Jason Murray, and the Solicitor General for Denver, Colorado, Shannon Stevenson, provided arguments for their case. Discussions ranged from enforcements under the “insurrection clause” to the power of states in appointing electors as per Article II of the Constitution.
After more than two hours of arguments, the session ended with closing arguments from Trump’s legal counsel Jonathan Mitchell. He maintained that under Section 3, states have altered the criteria requiring a candidate to demonstrate their eligibility for office before assuming office and possibly winning the election.
As the legal community now awaits SCOTUS’s ruling on this unprecedented case, having a seat in the courtroom provided a unique perspective on the proceedings — highlighting the importance and potential implications of the Trump v. Anderson ballot disqualification case.