海角大神

When the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral argument next week in a case that could see Donald Trump disqualified from the 2024 presidential election, the justices will consider a number of complex and politically fraught questions.

The case, Trump v. Anderson, concerns whether Mr. Trump is barred from running by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The Civil War-era provision holds that anyone who 鈥渆ngages in insurrection鈥� against the United States is disqualified from public office, and last month the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the provision applies to Mr. Trump.

The case is unprecedented, and it raises a host of complex and rarely litigated questions. Among those questions, two stand out as more politically sensitive than any others: Do the events on and around Jan. 6, 2021, when hundreds of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol while Congress certified the 2020 election results, constitute an 鈥渋nsurrection鈥� per Section 3? And did Mr. Trump 鈥渆ngage in鈥� that insurrection?

These are the kinds of questions the Supreme Court tends to try to avoid. There are several issues on which the justices could decide the case, so they could still choose to avoid it. Even then, experts say, the court鈥檚 silence will be deafening.

What 鈥渆ngaging in insurrection鈥� means聽

There is little in Section 3, or elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifying what 鈥渆ngages in insurrection鈥� means. The question is also a fact-specific one, and in the U.S. court system, district courts are considered the main finders of fact. That can be a challenge in election cases, which are often heard on expedited timelines, as this case was.聽

In the Anderson case, the district court held a five-day trial that included 15 witnesses and 96 exhibits, with another two weeks for parties to submit other findings of fact and legal arguments. Much of that time was spent analyzing events leading up to and during Jan. 6, including President Trump鈥檚 fiery speech to protesters just two hours before they breached the Capitol and his repeated false claims before and during that day that he had won the 2020 election.

But in a dissent to the Colorado Supreme Court decision, Justice Brian Boatright questioned if the district court had enough time and resources to give the case the full evidentiary hearings it deserved.聽

A Section 3 case, he wrote, 鈥減resents uniquely complex questions that exceed the adjudicative competence of [the code鈥檚] expedited procedures.鈥�

Process questions aside, while the 鈥渆ngaged in insurrection鈥� question is a complex and politically volatile one, it is ultimately a yes/no question.

On the 鈥渘o鈥� side, some legal experts argue that Jan. 6 doesn鈥檛 constitute an insurrection because it wasn鈥檛 long enough or violent enough. Seven people died during or as a result of that attack. Some scholars also claim that Mr. Trump did not 鈥渆ngage鈥� in their actions. They point to the facts that he spoke before the protest turned violent and he simply watched the violence unfold from the White House. That, they argue, doesn鈥檛 justify disqualifying him from the ballot.

Furthermore, they add, the president鈥檚 relative inaction that day 鈥� including waiting almost three hours to tell supporters to peacefully disband, and choosing to not deploy additional federal law enforcement to the Capitol 鈥� doesn鈥檛 amount to engaging in insurrection.

鈥淚 think he was reveling in what he saw,鈥� says Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. 鈥滲ut that鈥檚 different from him having an intent to bring about insurrection and act on that intent, even if the intent was doing nothing.鈥澛�

A history of insurrection

In countering these arguments, other legal experts point first to the history of Section 3. For a Supreme Court that places value on history and the original meaning of the Constitution, these arguments could prove compelling.

When the 14th Amendment was ratified, Supreme Court rulings and other legal opinions had coalesced around a four-part definition for 鈥渋nsurrection.鈥� It required an 鈥渁ssemblage鈥� of people resisting 鈥渁ny federal law鈥� by 鈥渇orce or violence,鈥� and had to have 鈥渁 public purpose.鈥澛�

鈥淚t would be incorrect for the [justices] to say that Trump did not engage in an insurrection, as 鈥榚ngage in insurrection鈥� was understood鈥� in 1868, says Mark Graber, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Law who believes that Mr. Trump should be disqualified.

Historically, Section 3 has also been consistently applied to people who haven鈥檛 been first convicted of insurrection. The drafters viewed the provision as an additional, civil law consequence of engaging in insurrection, separate from other legal punishments.

鈥淪ection 3 is a civil remedy,鈥� says Gerard Magliocca, a professor at the Indiana University School of Law. If Mr. Trump is disqualified, he adds, 鈥測ou鈥檙e not putting him in jail; you鈥檙e not taking his property away. ... He鈥檚 not in office, [so] you鈥檙e not taking his office away.鈥�

More importantly, he argues, Section 3 doesn鈥檛 disenfranchise voters. 鈥淵ou can鈥檛 take away someone鈥檚 right to vote unless you convict them of a felony,鈥� he says. But 鈥渟aying a particular person they want to vote for is ineligible [isn鈥檛] the same as taking away their right to vote.鈥�

Shifting the focus聽

Next week, the nine justices may probe attorneys on these questions. But the 鈥渆ngaged in insurrection鈥� issue is both fact-dependent and politically fraught. When deciding the case, the court may focus on other issues.

The court 鈥渋sn鈥檛 going to want to review factual claims about what happened on Jan. 6,鈥� says Professor Lessig. 鈥淚nstead, you鈥檙e going to see them try to decide the case in a way that鈥檚 based solely on the law.鈥�

But even if the justices base their ruling on other issues 鈥� such as whether Section 3 is self-executing or covers the presidency 鈥� some experts say they will have to make some statement about Jan. 6.

The case has drawn comparisons to other monumental cases in Supreme Court history. These cases combine serious legal implications with issues that divided the country. With Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, it was segregation. With United States v. Nixon in 1974, it was Watergate.

With Trump v. Anderson in 2024, it will be Jan. 6 and the false claim that Mr. Trump won the 2020 election. The justices聽dismissed some challenges to the 2020 presidential election results. So this will be the high court鈥檚 first case concerning the subsequent attack on the Capitol.

鈥淭he rhetoric in these opinions is going to be very important,鈥欌�� says Professor Magliocca.