The U.S. Supreme Court must intervene in the debate over whether former President Donald Trump rebelled against the United States, a former federal prosecutor said.
Neama Rahmani told Newsweek that it is now a major constitutional issue after Maine on Thursday became the second state to remove Trump from the 2024 presidential primary ballot for allegedly encouraging the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.
"This is a matter of immense constitutional importance raising novel legal questions with completely inconsistent rulings across the country," Rahmani said. "The Supreme Court has discretion as always, but it has to step in and answer these questions once and for all."
Rahmani said that the Supreme Court must end confusion over Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was introduced after the Civil War to stop those who had engaged in insurrection against the United States from ever taking federal office.
"Everyone knows what the 14th Amendment says, but nobody has been able to definitely rule how it is enforced and who enforces it," he said.
Rahmani, now president of the West Coast Trial Lawyers law firm, said that the Maine courts still have to rule on Thursday's decision by Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows to remove Trump from the state's ballot.
"Depending on what the Maine courts do, we may see a second 14th Amendment insurrection case end up before the Supreme Court, or the justices may consolidate the cases," he said.
Bellows' ruling was based on Section 3 on the 14th Amendment, which prohibits people from holding office if they "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the (Constitution), or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." Trump opponents argue that he encouraged the invasion of the Capitol building on January 6, 2021, to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden's 2020 election victory.
Trump's appearance on ballots is being challenged across the country. Challenges have been filed in at least 32 states. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled this month that Trump should not be on the ballot.
Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor, told Newsweek that a U.S. Supreme Court decision will be the only way to end the confusion.
"Once Colorado decided that Trump could not appear on the primary ballot, U.S. Supreme Court review became inevitable," he said. "Other states, most recently Michigan, have disagreed with Colorado. A Supreme Court review is the only way to get a definitive ruling and national uniformity on the question."
Peter Shane, a constitutional lecturer at New York University, told Newsweek that the issue will likely be fast-tracked to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"A weird feature of our presidential elections is that we actually hold not one national election, but 51 separate elections for presidential electors. Hence, every state and D.C. will have its own procedures to follow regarding petitions for disqualification," he said.
"Colorado requires candidates on a primary ballot to be certifiably qualified to serve as president. Michigan apparently does not. Maine has the secretary of state make the initial determination. Some version of this will get to the Supreme Court quickly, I assume."
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
fairness meter
To Rate This Article
About the writer
Sean O'Driscoll is a Newsweek Senior Crime and Courts Reporter based in Ireland. His focus is reporting on U.S. law. ... Read more
