Trump hearing at Supreme Court: Updates on oral arguments in 14th Amendment case

WASHINGTON − The U.S. Supreme Court was in an uncomfortable position Thursday as it considered whether former President Donald Trump is disqualified from being president again.

Allowing states to take him off the ballot – as Colorado and Maine have moved to do – would be anti-democratic and violate the rights of the tens of millions of Americans who want to vote for the GOP frontrunner, Trump’s lawyers have told the court.

But allowing him to run again after he refused to accept his 2020 loss − which led to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol − would violate an anti-insurrectionist provision of the Constitution, the other side argues.

The stakes for this year's election are enormous: Not since an almost entirely different Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore in 2000, effectively handing the presidency to George W. Bush, has the court wielded such potential power over presidential politics.

At issue: whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, an anti-insurrection provision added after the Civil War to keep government officials who sided with the Confederacy from returning to power, applies to Trump. The provision bars people who took an oath to support the Constitution from holding office again if they engaged in insurrection.

Other Trump issues before the Court

The ballot eligibility issue is not the only time the Supreme Court could decide Trump’s future.

It’s considering a challenge to how federal prosecutors are going after Jan. 6 rioters in a case that could also affect the federal charges against Trump for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election.

In addition, Trump is expected to ask the Supreme Court to rule that, as a former president, he's immune from prosecution. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals determined Tuesday that Trump does not have absolute immunity and can face charges that he attempted to unlawfully overturn the 2020 election.

--Maureen Groppe

Election experts to Court: Don't punt

Don’t punt. That was the message three prominent election law experts sent to the court in one of the many filings by outside interests weighing in on this case.

The experts – Edward Foley, Benjamin Ginsberg and Richard Hasen – said they often don’t see eye to eye on matters of law or policy. But they joined together to make the “single, urgent point” that the court must definitively resolve − one way or the other − whether Trump is qualified under the Constitution to be president again.

Ruling in Trump’s favor on procedural or jurisdictional grounds would risk “political instability not seen since the Civil War,” they warned.

“We appreciate fully that the Members of this Court would prefer not to be thrust into the midst of a presidential election like this,” they wrote. “But there is no avoiding it.”

--Maureen Groppe

Low approval ratings

The momentous decision before the justices comes as the court has been rocked by ethics scandals, criticism over its 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and low public approval ratings.

At the start of the current term, American’s approval of the Supreme Court and their trust in it remained near their historically lowest points, according to Gallup surveys.

Last September, nearly six in ten Americans said they disapproved of the Supreme Court is handling its job. About four in ten approved.

--Maureen Groppe

'They don't really represent the people'

While plaintiffs’ attorneys are confident, some anti-Trump demonstrators are skeptical that this Supreme Court will act observation to exclude Trump from the ballot.

“So far, they’ve shown that they don’t really represent the people,” said Mor Pipman, 55, who traveled to D.C. from Hudson Valley, New York, for the protest in front of the Supreme Court.

“And Trump,'' she said, ''has appointed quite a few of them.”

-- David Jackson

Justices find moments of levity in serious debate

Despite the seriousness of the case, the justices found several opportunities for modest jokes during the argument.

Chief Justice John Roberts predicted that removing former President Donald Trump from the ballot would spur other states to remove other candidates.

“Although my predictions never have been correct,” Roberts said to laughter.

When lawyer Jason Murray hesitated in an answer, Justice Neil Gorsuch told him “I’m asking you” to laughter.

The argument was longer than usual, stretching more than two hours. But at one point, Justice Elena Kagan wanted to make sure there would be debate about the definition of federal office holder, a central element to Trump’s argument.

“Absolutely,” Roberts assured her, to laughter.

--Bart Jansen

'A few giggles'

Attorneys and plaintiffs brushed off questions about the critical queries from court members. Murray said he was confident the justices would “dig in” into the law and make the right decision. “We’re confident the court will apply the law,” he said.

Asked about the “atmosphere” inside the courtroom, Anderson said things were “quiet” and “intense.” There were, she said, ''a few giggles once in a while.”

-- David Jackson

Two justices voice impatience with lawyer trying to keep Trump off ballot

Most of the debate occurred without justices interrupting the lawyers, as is common in other cases. But perhaps the biggest clash came when two of the justices accused Jason Murray, a lawyer arguing to keep former President Donald Trump off the ballot, of not answering their questions. It was his first argument before the Supreme Court.

Justice Neil Gorsuch seemed to run out of patience as he asked how an official should be treated after participating in an insurrection but before a criminal conviction.

After several false starts by Murray, Gorsuch thrust out his right hand while holding a pen.

Gorsuch asked about being disqualified the moment somebody participates in insurrection.

“I'm not going to say it again, so just try and answer the question,” Gorsuch said. ”Please don't change the hypothetical, okay?”

Murray eventually replied that impeachment would be the remedy to validate an official isn’t qualified for office.

Justice Samuel Alito also scolded Murray after asking what would happen if different states had different standards for candidates that could determine who is elected president for the entire country. Alito asked if the Supreme Court would have to hold its own trial.

“Yeah, but you're really not answering my question,” Alito said. “It's not helpful if you don't do that.”

Murray replied that different states often have different standards for whose name can be on a ballot. He said the Supreme Court could ultimately resolve disputes about who is on the ballot.

--Bart Jansen

Secretaries of state criticize Colorado case

The rush to the Supreme Court microphones has begun.

A group of Republican secretaries of state approached the media to argue that the Colorado Supreme Court - and the Maine secretary of state - erred in excluding Trump from their state ballots.

“Secretaries of state should not be determining who is on the ballot,” said Jay Ashcroft, who holds that title in Missouri. As Ashcroft and others made their case, a nearby protester shouted things like “Trump is a traitor.”

-- David Jackson

'Something he did to himself'

The Colorado plaintiffs expressed confidence - or at least hope - that the Supreme Court would rule in their favor.

“I’m going to trust them to do the right thing,” said Norma Anderson, a 91-year old voter who helped bring the Colorado case.

Jason Murray, the attorney, who argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, said the Colorado Supreme Court did not do anything to Trump in excluding him from the ballot: “That is something he did to himself.”

--David Jackson

Spectators include lawmakers, spouses of justices

Spectators attending the historic argument included participants in the case, lawmakers and spouses of the justices.

Norma Anderson, a former Republican state senator in Colorado who is a named plaintiff in the case, sat in the second row on right side of the courtroom facing the justices. Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, who ruled Trump ineligible for the ballot, also attended.

Interest in the case was bipartisan. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md. and a constitutional scholar, sat in the front row on the right side of the courtroom facing the justices. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, sat in the fourth row in the center section of seats.

Trump didn’t attend the argument. But aides such as Boris Epshteyn and Jason Miller sat in the center section of seats.

Guests of the justices, on the right side facing the bench, included spouses Jesse Barrett, husband of Justice Amy Coney Barrett; Ashley Kavanaugh, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s wife; and Patrick Jackson, husband of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Mark Paoletta, a lawyer who represents Ginni Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, also sat in the guest section.

--Bart Jansen

Former Supreme Court lawyer predicts decisive Trump victory

Former Principal Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal was very critical of Colorado Voters attorney Jason Murray, both in the substance of his arguments and lack of forcefulness about bringing attention to the broader threat of potential insurrections in the future.

In a running commentary on X, formerly known as Twitter – and as an MSNBC legal analyst – Katyal said he believed the court will rule decisively in Trump’s favor.

“Court asking technical questions about Colorado election law more than anything. Not even bothering asking questions about the big questions about the 14th amendment,” Katyal said in one tweet. “Seems like even they feel like it's over.”

In another, Katyal wrote toward the end of the session, “Um, I think right now maybe I want to go back to reading about Taylor and Travis and April 19.”

   --Josh Meyer

Justices took the bench seemingly aware of significance of the landmark case

The justices stepped to their raised mahogany bench at 10 a.m. ready for more than two hours of argument and seemingly aware of the landmark case before them.

While still standing, Justice Sonia Sotomayor glanced over at the press section to her right, filled with about 100 reporters at desks flanked by marble pillars and on wooden chairs behind the pillars.

After taking their seats, Justice Clarence Thomas, the most senior member sitting at the right hand of Chief Justice John Roberts, organized a stack of pamphlets in red and turquoise covers holding written arguments in the case.

As decisions in two previous cases were read, Justices Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh, to Roberts’ left, shared comments and smiled while looking out at the courtroom packed with spectators.

At 10:09 a.m., Jonathan Mitchell, one of Trump’s lawyers, began two minutes of uninterrupted introduction to the case as Roberts looked over his glasses and Justice Samuel Alito rocked in his chair.

Thomas asked the first question, about whether the disputed provision in the Constitution was self-executing and the debate was off.

--Bart Jansen

Justice Clarence Thomas' fans

As the nine Supreme Court Justices probed attorneys about their arguments, some supporters of the key players took to social media to rally around their Supreme Court favorites.

'Justice Clarence Thomas is a national treasure,' the conservative Heritage Foundation posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, after his questions.

Perhaps the support was prompted by calls from some Democrats for Thomas to recuse himself from the case because of his wife's political advocacy.

More:Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from Trump Supreme Court case: Democrats

'We have to have faith in our system'

Shannon Stevenson, Colorado’s solicitor general, dismissed the concern raised by some justices that letting Colorado’s decision stand will lead to a mismatch of actions across the country.

“We have to have faith in our system that people will follow their election processes appropriately,” she said, “that they will take realistic views of what insurrection is under the 14th Amendment.”

Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, can review decisions by states. So the high court, she said, shouldn’t “take those threats too seriously.”

-- Maureen Groppe

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said she’s troubled

Justice Ketanji Brown said she’s troubled by the fact that Section 3 doesn’t specifically mention the president in the list of positions barred to insurrectionists, including presidential electors. Were the authors of the provisions not concerned about an insurrectionist president or did they think that could be stopped by barring presidential electors, she asked.

Jason Murray, the attorney for the Colorado voters, responded that when the provision was being debated, a member of Congress asked why it didn’t name the presidency. He was told that the presidency is covered because access is barred to “any office, civil or military, under the United States.”

But doesn’t the fact that that question had to be asked show that the text is ambiguous, Jackson asked. 

--Maureen Groppe

Justice Brett Kavanaugh: Knocking Trump off the ballot would be anti-democratic

Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised the argument that allowing Colorado to knock Donald Trump off the ballot would be anti-democratic because it would disenfranchise the millions of voters who want to vote for Trump.

Attorney Jason Murray said the reason the Colorado voters he represents brought its challenge is because Trump tried to disenfranchise the millions of Americans who voted against him in 2020, a decision he refused to accept by trying to overturn the results of the election.

“The Constitution doesn’t require that he be given another chance,” Murray said.

--Maureen Groppe

When will the Supreme Court make a decision?

The court has no deadline. The justices have been urged to settle the issue before more voters go to the polls. Colorado’s and Maine’s primaries are March 5, otherwise known as Super Tuesday, when more than a dozen states will hold primary elections.

-- Maureen Grope

Huddled around a speaker, listening to the legal arguments

Some of the protesters outside the Supreme Court are huddled around a small speaker that is playing audio of the legal arguments inside.

Most of the listeners are opposed to Trump, and are nodding along with statements that support their views.

-- David Jackson

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson presses question on letting Colorado's decision stand

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson continued to press the concern that letting Colorado’s decision stand would result in different ballots across the country.

Why, she asked, would the authors of Section 3 have created a situation that would result in “disuniformity” in which elections are pending and different states suddenly say one candidate is eligible and another is not?

What the authors were concerned about was ensuring that insurrectionists and rebels not hold office again, responded Jason Murray, the attorney for the Colorado voters. Letting states enforce Section 3 is an additional layer of safeguard against that, he said.

-- Maureen Groppe

Justice Amy Coney Barrett expresses frustration

Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed frustration that the court is stuck with the record the Colorado courts used in deciding Trump engaged in an insurrection. What if that record isn’t complete or Trump didn’t get enough due process, she posed.

Jason Murray, the attorney for the Colorado voters, said Trump didn’t ask for other witnesses at the district court’s five-day trial.

The essence of the case against him, Murray said, are Trump’s own words, which are not disputed.

-- Maureen Groppe

'It will come down to just a handful of states that will decide the election'

If the court allows Colorado’s decision to stand, wouldn’t other states undertake their own proceedings with potentially different outcomes, Chief Justice John Roberts asked the attorney for the Colorado voters. That could lead to some states striking the Republican candidate from the ballot while others knock off the Democrat under their own standard of insurrection, Roberts said.

“It will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election,” he added.

Jason Murray, the attorney for the Colorado voters, said the Supreme Court can limit how Section 3 can be applied by making clear that an insurrection against the Constitution is something extraordinary, requiring a concentrated group effort to resist through violence. 

-- Maureen Groppe

'Love Train' and 'We are Family' playing outside the Supreme Court for an impromptu dance party

A few dozen anti-Trump and pro-Trump demonstrators are milling around in front of the Supreme Court building, waiting for the arguments to end. But they’ve also been joined by another kind of demonstrator.

Don Folden has pulled up a chair and posted a sign saying “Stop Hating Each Other Because You Disagree.”

Folden, 71, a D.C resident who conducts black history tours of the city, said too many people in these fractious times are talking “at” each other instead of “with” each other.

“Usually I’m at the White House,” he said. “But this is where the crowd is, and  these are the people who need to unite.”

Folden, who describes himself as the “Truth Conductor,” brought along a stereo system that played songs of unity; the soundtrack included “Love Train” and “We Are Family,” generating small dance parties on the sidewalk.

-- David Jackson

Why does one state get to decide who is president?

Justice Elana Kagan asked what she called a central question for the Colorado voters who argue Trump is disqualified.

Why, Kagan asked, does one state get to decide who is president?

“It sounds awfully national to me,” she said of that key determination.

Jason Murray, the attorney for the voters, said the decision will be a national one once the U.S. Supreme Court rules whether Colorado had the ability to take Trump off the ballot. 

-- Maureen Groppe

Were the Constitution's authors focused on the presidency?

Because Section 3 doesn’t specifically mention the office of president, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked if there’s any evidence that the authors were focused on the presidency when they wrote that provision.

Jonathan Mitchell, Trump’s attorney, said there was some concern about Confederate insurrectionists ascending to the presidency.

But, Mitchell said, his argument that Section 3 doesn’t apply to the presidency is based more on the text of the provision because the final language was a compromise. Also, Mitchell said, the thought process of the drafters is unknowable.

-- Maureen Groppe

Was Jan. 6, 2021, an insurrection?

What happened on Jan. 6, 2021, was not an insurrection, Trump’s lawyers told the court.

For an insurrection, there needs to be an organized, concerted effort to overthrow the government through violence, Jonathan Mitchell said.

“This was a riot,” he said. “It was not an insurrection.”

-- Maureen Groppe

'Office of United States' − a term of art?

Trump’s lawyer was probed on his argument that Section 3 doesn’t apply to the presidency because the president is not an “officer of the United States.”

Section 3 doesn’t specifically mention president. It bars from office insurrectionists who have previously taken an oath “as an officer of the United States” to “support the Constitution.”

Jonathan Mitchell called “office of the United States” a term of art that doesn’t refer to federal office holders but only to those who are appointed.

Trump also never swore an oath to “support” the Constitution, he argues, because presidents promise to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution.

While Trump would “fall through the cracks in a sense,” Mitchell said, if “officer of the United States” means appointed officials, there’s no way he can be covered under Section 3.

-- Maureen Groppe

A third term as president? Was there an insurrection? Questions from justices spark laughter

The justices probed the attorneys for Donald Trump on different scenarios that would lead to him being disqualified from the ballot, with spirited debate about hypotheticals sparking laughter in the courtroom.

The opening discussion included questions from all nine Supreme Court justices.

Discussing the 14th Amendment

Even if a candidate admitted to being an insurrectionist, a secretary of state cannot remove him from the ballot because Congress could later absolve him of the disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, Trump’s lawyer said in response to a question from Chief Justice John Roberts.

That section allows Congress, with a two-thirds vote, to let an insurrectionist hold office again.

That may be unlikely, attorney Jonathan Mitchell said, but a secretary of state is not allowed to predict whether Congress will act before a candidate assumes the office.

-- Maureen Groppe

Was Trump an insurrectionist? Debate focuses on key provision in Constitution

The anti-insurrectionist provision of the Constitution does not apply to former President Donald Trump because the provision refers only to appointed officials and not elected officials, Trump’s lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell, told the Supreme Court in his opening argument Thursday. 

In a historic case with potentially major repercussions for this year’s presidential election, the Supreme Court is deciding whether Colorado’s Supreme Court correctly concluded that Trump is disqualified from the presidency because of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Trump has given the court multiple reasons why they think that decision was wrong. If the justices agree with him on any one of those reasons, he will remain on Colorado’s presidential primary ballot. 

"We don’t know whether President Trump will be excused (from disqualification) before he’s sworn in, if he wins the election,” Mitchell said. “Section 3 bans him only from holding office.”

-- Maureen Groppe

Dig deeper:Calling himself `presumptive nominee,' Trump tells Supreme Court to keep him on the ballot

Protestors carry signs blasting a 'Failed Coup' from Trump

As the arguments inside the courtroom began, about two dozen anti-Trumpers demonstrated outside, carrying signs like “Failed Coup” and “Trump Led A Riot,” and urging the court to rule their way.

Just a few Trump supporters showed up, most of them displaying 2024 election signs.

Demonstrators of all stripes were outnumbered by reporters and student tour groups, one of the latter from Belgium. Still, people who showed up said it was important for their voices to be heard. “We’re a  country of laws - hopefully,” said Jennifer Hobbs an anti-Trump lawyer from New York.

-- David Jackson

Colorado, where the issue began, is watching Supreme Court argument

Coloradoans are waiting to see if the Supreme Court will put Donald Trump back on their presidential ballot this year – or leave him off, as the state Supreme Court ruled in December.

Richard Maes, 52, said he hopes the former president is kept off the ballot.

"I think it’s great that wealthy and powerful people can be held to the same standards and rules that your average ordinary person is," said Maes, an unaffiliated voter who works in banquet operations. "I believe that someone who doesn’t respect the desires of the American people, as a whole, doesn’t deserve to hold its highest office."

But some voters thought the court decision was made too hastily while criminal cases alleging Trump tries to steal the 2020 election are still pending. The Colorado court knocked Trump off the ballot Dec. 19, Trump appealed Jan. 3, the high court accepted the case Jan. 5 and set oral arguments for Thursday.

"He hasn't been convicted of anything yet, it's all allegations until proven guilty so, it’s setting the stage to make accusations," said Bill Waugaman, 61, a retired engineer and registered Republican .

Regardless of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, Deborah Klein, 68, said she would vote for Trump by writing in his name if he isn’t on the ballot.

"I will still vote for him no matter what, I think he's the only one who can do something about how corrupted the Department of Justice and FBI is for that matter," said Klein, a business owner and Republican voter in El Paso County.

--Natasha Lovato

Bush v. Gore

Justice Clarence Thomas is the only current member of the court who was on the bench in 2000 when the court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines that vote recounts in Florida had to stop. The majority said a recount of the presidential election wasn't feasible in a reasonable time period. That decision came a day after oral arguments.

After Thursday's oral arguments on Trump's ballot eligibility, the justices are expected to issue an opinion quickly, but not as fast as in 2020.

--Maureen Groppe

Supreme Court seals off its plaza, crowds line the streets hoping for 'landmark' case

The spacious marble plaza in front of the Supreme Court building is a No Person’s Land. Court security sealed off the plaza, leaving demonstrators, police  - and many reporters - to fend for themselves on the sidewalk in front of the iconic court setting.

So far, anti-Trump protesters are dominating the crowds. Nearly two dozen people were carrying signs, accusing the former president of being a “traitor,” and breaking out in occasional chants on this theme.

Meanwhile, a few Trump supporters were walking up and down the sidewalk carrying signs advertising the former president’s 2024 campaign. The good news: Skies are clear and temperatures are in the mid-30s - chilly but not horrible.

-- David Jackson

Waiting on folding chairs in for two freezing nights to attend arguments

Hundreds of spectators lined up – for as long as two nights in freezing temperatures – to attend the Supreme Court’s argument Thursday about whether Donald Trump’s name should appear on Colorado’s presidential ballot this year.

Third in line and sitting on a folding chair, Landon Eckard, 22, a law student at Elon University Law School in Greensboro, North Carolina, said he was eager to attend to hear a historic case.

“It’s going to be a landmark,” Eckard said. “It highlights both the political and the legal spheres. Not a lot of people can say they’ve seen a landmark case and it’s going to be historic.”

A crisp, clear dawn broke Thursday beneath blue skies, with temperature about 32 degrees. Eckard said he joined the line about 7 p.m. Tuesday.

“Two cold nights,” Eckard said with a laugh.

--Bart Jansen

What is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment?

The provision bars people who took an oath to support the Constitution from holding office again if they engaged in insurrection.  The clause says:

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

--Maureen Groppe

Trump to speak on Supreme Court arguments later today at Mar-a-Lago

Donald Trump will not be attending today’s arguments before the Supreme Court. Instead, he’ll be monitoring events from his Mar-a-Lago home in Palm Beach Florida.

The former president is expected to “address the public” via television after the arguments, according to his schedule. Trump is also scheduled to travel to Nevada for tonight’s 2024 campaign caucuses, which he is expected to win easily.

-- David Jackson

What time does Supreme Court hearing start? 

The court is scheduled to debate Trump v. Anderson at 10 a.m. EST Thursday. The allotted time is 80 minutes but is expected to run much longer. Audio is available through the court’s website: www.supremecourt.gov.

Trump not expected to attend Supreme Court arguments

Donald Trump has confronted judges, disparaged opponents and given hallway speeches during recent trials, employing his legal battles as an extension of his presidential campaign.

But don’t expect provocations and off-the-cuff drama when the Supreme Court hears arguments Thursday about whether Trump should be on Colorado’s ballot.

Trump, who has shown up at two of his civil trials recently, isn't expected to attend the Supreme Court arguments, scheduled for the same day as Nevada's GOP presidential caucuses. And the high court conducts its arguments much more strictly than the lower courts do − making it less likely Trump will be the star of a similar courthouse drama.

Also, the Supreme Court updated its rules in 2013 to codify the practice that only lawyers can present arguments.

--Bart Jansen

More:'Open mic night' at the Supreme Court? Don't expect Donald Trump to let loose at the marble palace

How are the Supreme Court justices leaning in the Trump Colorado ballot case?

Determining which way the justices are leaning will be difficult from the oral arguments, lawyers for the Colorado voters said Wednesday. The issues being debated are all new, said attorney Sean Grimsley, as this is the first time the nation’s highest court will hear a case on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

“I think it'll be a little hard to predict or to tea leaf read tomorrow,” Grimsley told reporters. “I think there are certainly some who are going to be very interested in the textual analysis, the historical analysis, others in some of the policy arguments.”

Noah Bookbinder, president of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which is representing the voters, expected “really probing questions” in all directions.

-- Maureen Groppe