Photo: Alamy
The U.S. Supreme Court adjourned on Thursday after listening to oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson, a 14th Amendment case based in Colorado.
Several weeks ago, the Colorado State Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump was not qualified to appear on their 2024 ballot this election cycle based on a 14th Amendment, Section 3 argument.
At the close of Thursday’s hearing, the court adjourned and announced that they would reconvene on Friday, February 16.
According to The New York Times, the case itself has been fast-tracked, as it is currently pushing up against the rapidly approaching Colorado GOP primary on March 5, 2024.
Attorneys for the plaintiff have asked for a ruling no later than Feb. 11, the outlet further reported.
Thursday’s oral arguments featured a litany of questions from the justices, whereby Trump attorney Jonathan Mitchell, Colorado attorney Jason Murray, and Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson made their cases for their clients.
Overall, the Supreme Court justices seemed skeptical of the idea that Trump could be removed from the 2024 ballot. Justice Brett Kavanaugh addressed this at one point, noting that President Trump had “not been charged” with insurrection.
He added that there were tools available to states as it pertained to barring insurrectionists from running for office or holding public office, pointing to Section 2383 of Title 18, which he stated was a federal criminal statute.
“And so, there is a federal statute on the books, but President Trump has not been charged with that [insurrection],” he said.
Legal scholar and chair of Shapiro Interest Law, Jonathan Turley, observed on X that the Supreme Court justices gave a “perfectly glacial” reception to the Colorado attorneys’ arguments.
He wrote, “The argument is now over. The disqualification advocates may have expected a cold reception, but this was perfectly glacial. Notably, some of the toughest and most skeptical questions came from the left of the Court…Most notable were the questions from Justice Jackson who seemed to push the idea that the president may not have been intended to be one of those covered by the provision.”
