Earlier today, Lawfare<\/em> published my article<\/a> criticizing the Supreme Court’s recent article in the Trump Section 3 disqualification case. Here is an excerpt from the introduction:<\/p>\n

\n

The Supreme Court’s unanimous recent decision<\/a> in Trump v. Anderson<\/em> overturned the Colorado Supreme Court ruling disqualifying Donald Trump from the presidency under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It does so on the grounds that Section 3 is not “self-executing.” In a per curiam opinion jointly authored by five justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court ruled that only Congress, acting through legislation, has the power to determine who is disqualified and under what procedures. This outcome was predictable based on the oral argument<\/a>… But the Court nonetheless got the issue badly wrong….<\/p>\n

Section 3 states<\/a> that “No person” can hold any state or federal office if they had previously been “a member of Congress, or … an officer of the United States” or a state official and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”<\/p>\n

By focusing exclusively on the self-execution issue, the Court left for another day all the other arguments at stake in the Trump case, such as whether the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol qualifies as an “insurrection,” whether Trump “engaged” in it, whether his actions were protected by the First Amendment, whether Trump received adequate due process, and whether the president is an “officer of the United States” covered by Section 3. The justices may hope they can avoid ever having to decide these questions.<\/p>\n

In my view<\/a>, Trump deserved to lose<\/a> on all these points, and the Colorado Supreme Court correctly rejected<\/a> his arguments on them. But I think he did have a plausible argument on the issue of whether his involvement in the Jan. 6 attack was extensive enough to qualify as “engaging” in insurrection. At the very least, he had a better argument there than on self-execution. The Court’s resolution of the latter issue is based on badly flawed reasoning\u00a0and relies heavily on dubious policy arguments invoking the overblown danger of a “patchwork” of conflicting state resolutions of Section 3 issues. The Court’s venture into policy was also indefensibly one-sided, failing to consider the practical dangers of effectively neutering Section 3 with respect to candidates for federal office and holders of such positions.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The post New Lawfare Article on "What the Supreme Court Got Wrong in the Trump Section 3 Case"<\/a> appeared first on Reason.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I argue that the justices botched the legal analysis and relied too much on questionable policy considerations. …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"tdm_status":"","tdm_grid_status":""},"categories":[19,9],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/3rdcitynews.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99455"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/3rdcitynews.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/3rdcitynews.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/3rdcitynews.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/3rdcitynews.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=99455"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/3rdcitynews.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99455\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/3rdcitynews.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=99455"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/3rdcitynews.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=99455"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/3rdcitynews.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=99455"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}