Sorting by


Trump’s Fate In Supreme Court’s Hands


Will the Supreme Court deliver for President Trump? Let’s hope so.

The determination of whether former President Donald Trump should be included on election ballots in states aiming to remove him lies squarely in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court, according to legal analysts. This follows rulings by Colorado’s Supreme Court and Maine’s secretary of state, asserting Trump’s ineligibility for their respective state ballots. In contrast, the high courts in Michigan and Minnesota permitted Trump’s presence on their primary ballots, a decision recently mirrored by California’s secretary of state.

In response to the adverse rulings in Colorado and Maine, Trump’s legal team is poised to challenge these decisions, with anticipated filings as early as Tuesday, as reported by The New York Times. The divergent outcomes across states make it increasingly probable that the U.S. Supreme Court will need to render a definitive decision on Trump’s ballot eligibility.


Doug Spencer, a law professor at the University of Colorado, highlighted the significance of the Colorado case in raising the likelihood of U.S. Supreme Court intervention, emphasizing that the court typically acts in cases involving federal circuit divides rather than state Supreme Court disagreements on state law grounds.

Legal experts anticipate the U.S. Supreme Court will be compelled to issue a ruling, considering the varied procedural approaches adopted by states. Professor Ray Brescia of Albany Law School emphasized the inevitability of Supreme Court intervention, citing the diverse legal perspectives on whether Trump must be found guilty of “insurrection” before being constitutionally deemed ineligible.

Lawsuits seeking Trump’s removal from ballots have been filed in approximately 30 states, with over half already dismissed. Active litigation persists in 14 states, including Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. These lawsuits invoke Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, prohibiting individuals who have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” and previously sworn an oath to support the Constitution from holding elected office. The uncertainty surrounding the legal requirements for Trump’s constitutional ineligibility sets the stage for an anticipated and pivotal U.S. Supreme Court intervention.