As the end of the year approaches, the Supreme Court faces two pressing legal questions about former President Trump and his alleged misconduct in office that will weigh heavily on next year’s elections and potentially set historic constitutional precedents.

On Tuesday, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump is ineligible under the 14th Amendment to participate in the state’s 2024 primary because of his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

State judges said he took an oath to support the Constitution but “engaged in an insurrection” to undermine it.

State judges suspended their ruling until Jan. 4 to allow for an early appeal to the Supreme Court.

On Wednesday, Trump’s lawyers are expected to urge the Supreme Court to rule that the former president is immune from criminal charges for actions leading up to the Jan. 6 attack.

Last week, special counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to quickly rule on Trump’s claim of immunity so that his trial can begin as scheduled on March 4.

A grand jury in Washington has indicted Trump on four counts alleging he conspired to “undermine the peaceful transition of power to his lawfully elected successor,” Smith said. “The cornerstone of our constitutional order is that no one is above the law. Nothing could be more important to our democracy than holding a president who abuses the electoral system to stay in office accountable for criminal conduct.”

The two legal challenges pose complex, unprecedented questions for a conservative court that includes three Trump appointees.

No president or ex-president has been charged for alleged crimes

that happened

while you are in the office. And no president has ever been accused of violating the Constitution for participating in an insurrection.

The 14th Amendment was passed after the Civil War to expand equal rights and freedoms for all Americans. It was previously little known Sec. 3 was added to prevent ex-allies from returning to office after being involved in an insurrection against the United States.

It took on new meaning after Trump refused to concede his November 2020 election loss and instead encouraged his allies and supporters to keep fighting.

Calm,

some

Legal scholars expressed surprise that the 14th Amendment could now hinder Trump’s bid for the White House in 2024.

Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller called the Colorado decision “an important and extraordinary achievement by a state Supreme Court. Never in history has a presidential candidate been barred from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment .”

He said Supreme Court review “seems inevitable” but that granting the case “requires the court to step into the most difficult political thicket.”

Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor, said the Colorado court “issued a serious and careful opinion that reaches a reasonable conclusion that Trump is disqualified.” merits.”

Some legal experts have Sec. 3 cannot be enforced because Congress has not passed a law to enforce it. Others, including a Colorado judge, said the president is not an ordinary “official” of the federal government and therefore not covered by Sec. 3.

The state court majority dismissed that as far-fetched. They said the Reconstruction Congress that wrote the amendment was certainly not intended to prevent ex-Confederates from holding minor offices while leaving the door open for Confederate President Jefferson Davis to become president of the United States.

Hasen said the Supreme Court should rule on Sec. 3. issue and soon.

“It is imperative for US political stability to obtain a final judicial resolution to these issues as soon as possible. Voters need to know if the candidate they support is eligible for president,” he said. “And if we don’t get a final judicial resolution before January 6, 2025, a Democratic-majority Congress could decide to disqualify Trump even if he appears to win the Electoral College vote. That would be extremely destabilizing.”

There is also pressure on the judges to rule soon on Trump’s claim of immunity from criminal prosecution.

Normally, a defendant’s legal claims are decided by a judge at trial or on appeal afterward. Claims of immunity, on the other hand, usually must be resolved before the trial begins.

Hanging over this case is the calendar of the election year and the extraordinary fact that the defendant is also the frontrunner for the Republican presidential candidate in 2024.

If the immunity claims cannot be resolved for several more months, Trump’s trial could be postponed until the summer, when the election campaign kicks into high gear.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is the trial judge, rejected Trump’s immunity claim in December.

cinder

1.

“Whatever immunity a sitting president enjoys, this position does not grant a lifetime ‘get out of jail’ pass,” she wrote. “Former presidents enjoy no special conditions regarding their federal criminal liability,” and they “do not possess absolute federal criminal immunity for acts committed while in office.”

Trump’s lawyers want the court to find that the former president has legal immunity from prosecution for “official actions” he took while in the White House.

They also argued that because the legal status of an ex-president is a weighty and unresolved constitutional issue, the justices should not rush to decide it quickly at the urging of special counsel Jack Smith.

Trump appealed Judge Chutkan’s decision to the DC Circuit Court

,

who agreed to hear arguments in early January. But the special counsel urged the judges to skip the appeals court

and the potentially months-long delay that the appeal would cause,

and make a decision on the immunity issue within a few weeks.

“It is of the utmost public interest that the respondents’ claims of immunity are resolved as quickly as possible and, if the respondent is not immune, that he or she receives a fair and expeditious trial on these charges,” he wrote.

The Constitution does not say whether an ex-president can be prosecuted for his official actions while in office.

In 1982, the justices ruled in a 5-4 decision that President Nixon could not be sued by a Pentagon whistleblower he had fired.

In that decision, in the case of Nixon vs. Fitzgerald, established the principle that former presidents have immunity from civil claims arising from their official actions, and Trump’s lawyers argue that the same rule should apply to criminal charges.

The two sides also disagree on the impeachment clause in the constitution. It says a president can be impeached and “removed from office” if two-thirds of senators convict him of “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

A second clause says that impeachment is limited to “removal from office…but the convicted party shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to law.”

The Special Counsel and

Right

Chutkan says this confirms the common view that deposed officials can be prosecuted for a crime after they leave office.

But Trump’s lawyers argue the opposite, saying that because the former president was not “convicted” by two-thirds of the Senate for inciting the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, he is not subject to indictment and trial for virtually the same behaviour.

Consideration of Smith’s request does not guarantee that the court will hear the case. Such a move to bypass the Circuit Court is rare, but the court has allowed it in situations that are of such compelling public interest that immediate consideration by the court is necessary. If accepted, it would be the first time the Supreme Court has interfered. about one of Trump’s charges. Any resolution of the immunity question could have a cascading effect on all four criminal cases Trump faces in the coming months. He has pleaded not guilty in the three federal felony cases and one state felony. His lawyers have repeatedly indicated they would argue presidential immunity as part of his defense. A separate legal battle over presidential immunity is underway in the civil cases Trump faces in connection with January 6. Separately, the Supreme Court said it will consider a challenge to a law that makes it a crime to obstruct or impede an official proceeding, which has been used to charge hundreds of people in connection with the January 6 insurrection. Trump also faces that charge in the DC election subversion case.