The Michigan Supreme Court made a significant decision regarding a case related to the ban on insurrectionists with connections to former President Trump. In this case, the court opted not to take up the matter, which has broader implications for legal challenges arising from the events of the terrorist attack on the nation's capital on January 6, 2021. The decision raises questions about the potential legal consequences for individuals associated with the insurrection.
In Colorado, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump was ineligible to be on the ballot. This decision adds a layer of complexity to the legal landscape surrounding Trump, indicating a growing trend of legal challenges related to his involvement in the events of January 6 and other aspects of his political career. The interplay between these legal cases underscores the ongoing legal scrutiny faced by the former President and the broader implications for his political future.
In the Colorado case that deemed Trump ineligible to be on the ballot, specific reasons were cited for this decision. The legal argument revolved around concerns about his involvement in the events of January 6, 2021, which were characterized as an insurrection against the government.
While the Colorado Supreme Court made the correct decision, the United States Supreme Court will have no choice now but to take up the matter of presidential immunity, which is the argument that Donald Trump has invoked when it comes to his numerous legal challenges, including his incitement of an insurrection.
Presidential immunity protects sitting presidents from specific legal actions, such as civil lawsuits or criminal prosecutions, while in office. This protection is not explicitly outlined in the United States Constitution. Still, it is often derived from principles of separation of powers and the need to ensure that the President can effectively carry out their duties without undue distraction.
Like other presidents before him, Donald Trump has argued for a broad interpretation of presidential immunity. His legal team has contended that a sitting president is shielded from prosecution for actions taken during their official duties while in office. This argument is based on the belief that subjecting a sitting president to legal actions could unduly interfere with their ability to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities.
One notable legal argument about this immunity is that a sitting president cannot be indicted or criminally prosecuted while in office. Trump's legal team has asserted that any alleged criminal conduct on his part should be addressed through impeachment proceedings rather than criminal charges. The argument that Donald Trump and his legal team believe is that since he was not impeached and removed from office, he is immune from criminal prosecution for crimes that occurred while serving as President of the United States.
When the United States Supreme Court makes a ruling about Trump's potential immunity from prosecution for crimes while he was serving as President, they will need to weigh the self-imposed Conservative edict of textualism and originalism. Textualism is the idea that the Constitution only grants powers that are explicitly written in the text, so they would need to consider the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically section three, which states the following:
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.
The bottom line of the text from a strict originalist view would be this: The Supreme Court cannot decide the case because of the last sentence in section three of the Fourteenth Amendment. Only the House and Senate can take up the matter, requiring a vote by two-thirds of each elected body.