Former federal judge Michael Luttig has suggested that the US Supreme Court is on track to decide whether Donald Trump is eligible to run for the presidency in 2024. Luttig, a highly regarded
legal expert, shared this viewpoint on Sunday.
The issue centers on section 3 of the 14th amendment, which prohibits individuals from holding federal office if they have "previously taken an oath … to support the constitution" and subsequently "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same." Luttig, along with some other prominent conservative scholars, argue that Trump's actions on January 6 and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election could disqualify him from running for president under this provision.
However, opinions on Trump's disqualification vary among legal scholars, with some questioning whether his conduct genuinely amounts to insurrection.
Notably, the 14th amendment provision has never been enforced, and the exact mechanism for doing so remains unclear. Secretaries of state, responsible for overseeing candidate eligibility requirements, are currently studying the process's probable course.
During an appearance on MSNBC's Velshi, Luttig emphasized the significance of the pending decision, stating, "This is one of the most fundamental questions that could ever be decided under our constitution." He predicted that the US Supreme Court would address it "sooner rather than later," potentially even before the first primary elections.
Trump appointed three of the justices currently serving on the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority. This decision could come at a time when the Court's credibility faces challenges due to ethics scandals and its controversial decision to overturn Roe v. Wade last year.
Election officials in some early primary states may soon need to decide how to handle challenges to Trump's eligibility, as several groups have pledged to bring such challenges. These officials are likely to face significant pressure. In New Hampshire, for example, Republican Secretary of State Dave Scanlan reported receiving numerous calls from Trump supporters following false claims made by conservative personality Charlie Kirk that Scanlan was attempting to remove Trump from the ballot. Scanlan and New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella issued a joint statement, clarifying that their offices had not taken a position on the potential applicability of section three of the 14th amendment and requesting guidance on its meaning and relevance to the upcoming presidential election cycle. Photo by Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, Wikimedia commons.