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:
What Americans think SCOTUS should do with Trump ballot challenges
An ABC News/Ipsos poll found a majority of Americans (56%) were willing to see Trump disqualified in all or some states: 30% said the U.S. Supreme Court should bar him completely and 26% said it should let each state decide.
Thirty-nine percent said the U.S. Supreme Court should keep Trump on the ballot in all states.
Americans were split on the decisions out of Maine and Colorado to bar Trump from the ballot: 49% supported them while 46% were opposed.
What to know about the arguments
There are 80 minutes total allotted for arguments but the court is expected to go over that timeframe.
A number of questions are likely to be debated: Is Trump an “officer” of the United States to whom Section 3 applies; who can enforce Section 3; and did Trump engage in an insurrection?
Trump is being represented by Jonathan Mitchell, a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia. The Colorado voters are being represented by Jason Murray, a former clerk to Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Read more about what to expect here.
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.