Supreme Court hears historic Trump 14th Amendment case: Key moments
The outcome could have major ramifications for the 2024 election.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday heard a historic case challenging Donald Trump's ability to hold office again over his role in the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021.
Trump asked the justices to overturn an unprecedented Colorado Supreme Court decision deeming him ineligible to appear on the state's GOP primary ballot because, it said, he "engaged in insurrection." Trump has long denied any wrongdoing.
The legal battle centers on a previously obscure provision of the Constitution's 14th Amendment -- Section 3 -- ratified shortly after the Civil War.
Latest headlines:
Challengers' counsel argues this case is about 'protecting democracy'
Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked whether the high court should think about democracy when interpreting Section 3, specifically the right of the people to elect candidates of their choice.
Murray, in a lengthy answer, gave an impassioned argument that this case is at the heart of protecting democracy.
"Constitutional safeguards are for the purpose of safeguarding our democracy, not just for the next election cycle but for generations to come," he said. "And second, Section 3 is designed to protect our democracy in that very way. The framers of Section 3 knew from painful experience that those who had violently broken their oaths to the Constitution couldn't be trusted to hold power again again because they could dismantle our Constitution democracy from within."
"President Trump can go ask Congress to give him amnesty by a two-thirds vote but, unless he does that, our Constitution protects us from insurrectionists," he continued.
"This case illustrates the danger of refusing to apply Section 3 as written because the reason we're here is that President Trump tried to disenfranchise 80 million Americans who voted against him and the Constitution doesn't require that he be given another chance."
Justice Alito: 'Would we have to have our own trial?'
Justice Samuel Alito pressed Murray on what the U.S. Supreme Court should do if different states adjudicate Trump's conduct differently based on different sets of evidence or standards of proof.
"Would we have to decide what is appropriate standard of proof?" Alito asked. "Would we give any deference to these findings by state court judges, some of whom may be elected? Would we have to have our own trial?"
"No, your honor, this court takes the evidentiary record as it's given," Murray said. "And here we have an evidentiary record that all the parties agree is sufficient for a decision in this case."
Chief Justice Roberts says Colorado case could mean disqualification efforts against Dems
"It would seem to me to be plain if Colorado position is upheld, surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side and some of those succeed," Chief Justice John Roberts said.
"The fact that there are potential frivolous applications of a constitutional provision isn't a reason to ...," Murray began to respond before Roberts cut him off.
"You might think they're frivolous, I think people who are bringing them may not think they're frivolous," Roberts said. "Insurrection is a broad, broad term and there's some debate about it."
"There's a reason Section 3 has been dormant for 150 and it's because we haven't seen anything like Jan. 6 since Reconstruction," Murray countered.
Attorney for Trump challengers says US Supreme Court must 'settle this issue for the nation'
Justice Elena Kagan asked Murray, the attorney for the Colorado voters, why a single state should be able to decide who gets to be president of the United States.
"That seems quite extraordinary doesn't it?" she asked.
"No, because ultimately it's this court that's going to decide that question of federal constitutional eligibility and settle issue for the nation," Murray replied.