J. Michael Luttig, a retired conservative federal judge, has filed a brief with the Supreme Court arguing that Donald Trump should be disqualified from running for president in 2024.

According to CNN, Luttig argues that Trump's attempt to remain in power after losing the 2020 election was even "broader" in scope than South Carolina's secession that sparked the Civil War.

In the document submitted Monday, Luttig contends that Trump's actions following the 2020 election constitute an insurrection, making him ineligible for office under the 14th Amendment.

This development comes as the high court prepares to hear arguments on Trump's ballot eligibility next month, following a landmark decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to remove him from that state's ballot.

The brief, filed on behalf of Luttig and other notable lawyers, including conservative attorney George Conway, urges the justices to interpret the Constitution's text strictly when considering Trump's case.

Constitutional Interpretation And Historical Context

Luttig's brief emphasizes the importance of examining the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist ban through a textualist lens.

The former judge asserts that because Section 3 of the amendment emerged from the Civil War era, it should be given its "fair meaning" rather than a narrow interpretation. This approach, Luttig argues, is crucial for understanding the intent of the provision and its applicability to Trump's situation.

The brief draws a stark comparison between Trump's actions and historical events, suggesting that the former president's efforts to prevent President Biden from governing anywhere in the United States were more extensive than South Carolina's attempt to prevent President Lincoln from governing only within that state during the Civil War.

Luttig and his co-authors contend that Trump's involvement in the events of January 6, 2021, directly aligns with the disqualification criteria outlined in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Legal Arguments And Potential Implications

The brief submitted to the Supreme Court challenges Trump's assertion that the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist ban can only be enforced by Congress after a candidate is elected. Luttig and his colleagues argue that enforcement of this provision falls within the purview of the courts, not solely the legislative branch.

According to the brief:

Trump's argument would deprive voters of the ability to make a truly informed decision, because they could not know if they were voting for someone who cannot serve. And it would risk chaos as courts litigate whether a newly-inaugurated President is disqualified at the same time the country needs a President to be indisputably occupying the office and making enormously consequential decisions – including as commander-in-chief, appointer of cabinet members, leader of the executive branch, vetoer of bills, etc.

This argument underscores the potential for significant political and legal turmoil if the issue of a president's eligibility were to be addressed only after their election and inauguration.

Supreme Court's Upcoming Decision And Its Significance

The Supreme Court's decision to review the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling has set the stage for a historic legal battle with far-reaching implications for the 2024 presidential election.

The justices are scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case on February 8, placing them at the center of a contentious debate over presidential eligibility and the interpretation of constitutional provisions.

Luttig's involvement in this case is particularly noteworthy given his conservative credentials and his previous role in the aftermath of the 2020 election. The former judge provided legal guidance to then-Vice President Mike Pence, supporting Pence's decision to resist Trump's efforts to overturn the election results.

The Supreme Court's ruling on this matter will likely have significant ramifications for the upcoming presidential election and could set a precedent for how the Constitution's provisions regarding eligibility for office are interpreted and applied in the future.

As the nation awaits the court's decision, the debate over Trump's eligibility continues to underscore the complex intersection of law, politics, and constitutional interpretation in American democracy.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court faces a critical decision regarding Trump's eligibility for the 2024 presidential ballot. Luttig's brief argues for Trump's disqualification based on the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist ban. The case raises important questions about constitutional interpretation, the role of courts in enforcing eligibility requirements, and the potential impacts on the electoral process. The upcoming oral arguments and subsequent rulings will be closely watched for their implications on the 2024 election and future interpretations of presidential eligibility criteria.