Trump’s Lawyers Made Some Very Odd Strategic Choices in the Supreme Court Ballot Case
SlateWhen the Supreme Court hears oral argument on Feb. 8 over Colorado’s decision to disqualify Donald Trump from appearing on the 2024 ballot on grounds that he engaged in insurrection and therefore violated part of the 14th Amendment, the odds have got to be in Trump’s favor. But ultimately the trial court ruled for Trump on what a layperson would surely call a technicality: The court ruled that as used in Section 3, “ ‘officers of the United States’ did not include the President of the United States” and that the presidency is not an “office … under the United States.” The Colorado Supreme Court disagreed only with this last part of the trial court’s reasoning, accepting other arguments, including the trial court’s factual conclusion that Trump engaged in insurrection. It seems weak: As Trump’s challengers argue in the Supreme Court: “It would defy common sense to hold that Section 3 disqualifies every oath-breaking insurrectionist officer except the most powerful one—a former Commander-in-Chief.” This is especially true given the historical context of the amendment’s passage. Deciding matters on a technicality would allow the Supreme Court to hide behind legal jargon and avoid weighing in on Trump’s conduct.