The Supreme Court recently began hearing arguments on the Colorado decision to remove former President Donald Trump from the ballot. Several conservative justices on the nation’s higher court have expressed skepticism that states have the authority to make a decision of such magnitude in the context of a national presidential election.
Jason Murray, the attorney arguing on behalf of the decision to omit Trump from the Colorado ballot, has attempted to justify the move on the grounds of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, also referred to as the “Insurrection Clause.”
Justice Samuel Alito pondered whether the “Insurrection Clause” could eventually end up hurting Democrats as invoking it could set a precedent for other states to apply it to President Biden. Alito illustrated a hypothetical scenario where Biden is accused of providing “aid or comfort to the enemies” of the nation.
“Suppose there is a country that proclaims again and again and again that the United States is its biggest enemy. And suppose that the president of the United States, for diplomatic reasons, thinks that it is in the best interest of the United States to provide funds or release funds so that they can be used by that country,” Alito said. “Could a state determine that that person has given aid and comfort to the enemy and therefore keep that person off of the ballot?”
Alito’s scenario could be applied to nations such as Iran, which has consistently threatened the United States. For example, reports indicate that the Iranian Minister of Defense claimed late last year that America would be “hit hard” if it did not implement a ceasefire in Gaza. Further intelligence suggests that Iran was also involved in the terrorist attack on Israeli citizens last October.
Furthermore, Biden controversially moved to release $6 billion in frozen assets to Iran despite the country’s adversarial relationship with the U.S. and warnings from Republicans that the money could be used to fund terrorism.
However, Murray responded to Alito, stating, “This court has never interpreted the aid-and-comfort language, which also is present in the Treason Clause. But commentators have suggested — it’s been rarely applied because treason prosecutions are so rare — but commentators have suggested that, first of all, that aid and comfort really only applies in the context of a declared war or at least an adversarial relationship where there is in fact a war.”
Alongside Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts also criticized the Colorado ballot decision, describing how it could create a domino effect of states removing candidates from ballots. “Some of them will have different standards of proof. Some of them will have different rules about evidence,” continued Roberts. “In very quick order, I would expect, although my predictions have never been correct, I would expect that a goodly number of states will say whoever the Democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot, and others for the Republican candidate, you’re off the ballot.” He added, “It’ll come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That’s a pretty daunting consequence.”
"*" indicates required fields