Supreme Court to decide if insurrection clause can block Trump from Colorado ballot

Read the Full Transcript

• Geoff Bennett:

  Tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in one of the most consequential elections cases ever. At issue, does the Constitution's Civil War era insurrection clause disqualify Donald Trump from holding higher office?

  The court will hear a case out of Colorado where its state Supreme Court ruled Mr. Trump is ineligible to be on the ballot there. Other states have come to the opposite conclusion.

  William Brangham explains the background to this historic case.

  Donald Trump , Former President of the United States (R) and Current U.S. Presidential Candidate: We fight. We fight like hell.

• William Brangham:

  It was a day scarred by chaos and violence.

  Thousands of supporters of then-President Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol, trying to stop the certification of Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election. But was that day and the events leading up to it an insurrection? And, if so, does an obscure provision in the Constitution prohibit Donald Trump from holding political office ever again?

  Those are some of the key questions the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh tomorrow as the justices parse a rarely considered provision of the 14th Amendment for the first time in the court's history.

  Manisha Sinha, University of Connecticut: So the 14th Amendment was passed a few years after the Civil War.

• William Brangham:

  Manisha Sinha is a Civil War historian at the University of Connecticut and one of the many researchers who submitted amicus briefs in this case.

• Manisha Sinha:

  The reason why the framers decided to do this was because they wanted to discourage political domestic violence, which is exactly what is happening in the postwar South at this time.

• William Brangham:

  Written after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment addresses the rights of American citizens, particularly formerly enslaved people.

  Of its five sections, it's Section 3 that's the crux of this case. It says, no one who took an oath to support the Constitution can ever hold office again if they — quote — "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

  Is it clear to you that January 6 and the events leading up to it in that day itself constitute any insurrection under Section 3?

• David Blight, Yale University:

  It is my opinion that it does, but it is also very much in the historical record.

• William Brangham:

  David Blight is a Civil War historian at Yale. He won a Pulitzer Prize for his biography of Frederick Douglass and also submitted a brief to the court.

• David Blight:

  An insurrection, if one looks up definitions of it, is when a group of people engage together to resist the power of the federal government by force with a large public aim.

  And what could be more important than overturning a legitimate election? The mob not only engaged in violence, invaded the U.S. Capitol, broke down its doors, broke down its windows. It led to deaths. It led to all sorts of injuries. It is a miracle there weren't more guns involved.

• Jason Murray, Plaintiffs’ Attorney:

  Who could more easily subvert our democracy from within than a commander in chief who has already tried to do so?

• William Brangham:

  Last December in Colorado was the first time a group of voters successfully won a case against Trump citing Section 3.

  Even though Trump's legal team argued he was simply exercising his right to question the election and never urged anyone to commit violence, Colorado's Supreme Court, in a split decision, ruled Trump had engaged in an insurrection and ordered him struck from the state's Republican primary ballot.

  Not long after, Maine's secretary of state also decided on similar grounds that Trump should be removed from that state's ballot. The U.S. Supreme Court will now try to settle what this 150-year-old provision means and whether it applies to Donald Trump .

  The former president's legal team will argue that Donald Trump did not engage in an insurrection, that Section 3 isn't applicable because he hasn't been charged or convicted, and that Section 3 doesn't say the president is a — quote — "officer of the United States."

• Manisha Sinha:

  It's quite clear, both to the creators of the 14th Amendment and those who discussed this disqualification clause, that this would apply to the president of the United States. In order to be president, you have to be 35 years of age, you have to be born in this country, and you have to not have incited insurrection against the government of the United States.

• William Brangham:

  While the justices debate these constitutional questions, there's an equally pressing political one.

  If the Supreme Court lets Colorado's ruling stand and more states, like Maine, take similar action, what will it mean for our democracy when millions of Americans cannot cast a vote for Donald Trump because of a constitutional provision that few voters have ever heard of?

  For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm William Brangham.