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:
Justice Alito questions impact of Colorado decision on other states
Justice Samuel Alito pressed Mitchell on the impact the Colorado decision may have on other states.
Mitchell warned about the possibility of national disuniformity.
"Your question gives rise to an even greater concern because if the decision does not have conclusive effect on other lawsuits, it opens the possibility that a different factual record could be developed in some of the litigation that occurs in different states and different factual findings could be entered by state trial judges," he said. "They might conclude, in fact, that President Trump did not have any intent to engage in incitement or make a finding that differs from what this trial court found."
First question comes from Justice Thomas, who faced calls for recusal
The first question to Mitchell came from Justice Clarence Thomas, who has been in the spotlight due to his wife Ginni's role in Jan. 6.
Some called on Thomas to recuse himself from this case.
Thomas asked Mitchell if Section 3 is self-executing -- a key issue in this case. Mitchell said the provision needs congressional enforcement.
Trump attorney kicks off oral arguments
Jonathan Mitchell, Trump's attorney, in his opening statement, asserted that the Colorado Supreme Court decision is "wrong and should be reversed for numerous independent reasons."
Mitchell argued that Trump is not covered under Section 3 as an elected official and claiming he is not an "officer of the United States." He also said that Section 3 cannot apply to a candidate, only those who hold office.
He said that if the U.S. Supreme Court affirms the Colorado Supreme Court's decision, it would "take away votes of potentially tens of millions of Americans."
Scenes from outside the U.S. Supreme Court
Ahead of the historic arguments, some anti-Trump demonstrators gathered outside the front of the building with banners and signs disparaging the former president.
Police also took steps to ramp up security by placing fencing around the court.
Attorney for Colorado secretary of state begins argument
Shannon Stevenson, the Colorado solicitor general, is now representing Secretary of State Jena Griswold. She is making the case that Colorado has the power, under state election code, to disqualify candidates who are ineligible to assume the office they’re seeking.
"Nothing in the Constitution strips the states of their power to direct presidential elections in this way," she said in her opening. "This case was handled capably and efficiently by the Colorado courts under a process that we've used to decide ballot changes for more than century. And as everyone agrees, the court now has the record that needs to to resolve these important issues."