Most of the justices are clearly inclined to reject a Colorado Supreme Court decision asserting that power under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Co-blogger Josh Blackman and I debated the case that will be argued before the Supreme Court this morning.
An interesting analysis of the former President's brief challenging his disqualification from the ballot in Colorado.
The brief explains why a criminal conviction is not necessary for Trump to be disqualified from the presidency under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
He is asking the justices to reject the Colorado Supreme Court's conclusion that he is disqualified from running for president.
On Douthat's reasoning, published in the NY Times, Confederate secession wasn't an insurrection either.
"Insurrection" and "rebellion" should not be conflated. But the events of January 6 readily meet the criteria for both.
The justices will hear the case on an expedited schedule, and could potentially consider all the issues it raises.
His Supreme Court petition raises serious questions about how to interpret and apply Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Letting state officials determine whether a candidate has "engaged in insurrection" opens a huge can of worms.
The weird story of Victor Berger, the Espionage Act, and "Shoeless" Joe Jackson.
Maine's Secretary of State ruled that Trump is ineligible for the presidency. The Michigan Supreme Court refused to reconsider a lower court ruling allowing Trump to remain on the GOP primary ballot, because state law doesn't limit primary ballot access to allow only candidates eligible for the office they seek.
My response to conservative political commentator Conn Carroll's argument on this issue.
The reason is a combination of the general structure of our legal system and the original meaning of Section 3.
Harvard law Prof. Larry Lessig's attempt to prove otherwise misfires.
The Colorado Supreme Court's reasoning in deciding that Trump is constitutionally disqualified from running for president seems iffy.
The Colorado court got this issue right. The case is now likely headed to the US Supreme Court.
The political push behind the law was well-meaning. But it will backfire on many prospective renters.
The article makes the case for disqualification on moral and pragmatic grounds, as well as legal ones.
The court ruled against Trump on his strongest arguments, but accepted a weak one.
Winning submissions will be included in a symposium, and get a $2000 honorarium.
The conference includes a variety of legal scholars and other experts on different sides of the issue, including VC bloggers Josh Blackman and myself.
School officials in three states are effectively immune from lawsuits over excessive corporal punishment. A Louisiana mother is asking the Supreme Court to step in.
After a divided ruling, laws limiting such treatments in Tennessee and Kentucky will go into force.
If false beliefs about legality exempt people from Section 3 disqualification, leading Confederates would have been exempt as well.
The debate aired on the Mehdi Hasan show.
The opposing view is contrary to the original meaning, and leads to absurd conclusions.
"If anything is a reprehensible act for a high official in a democracy that deserves retribution, this is a good example," says professor Ilya Somin.
I recently did interviews on these topics with Reason TV, the Washington Post, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
The case is just one example of miscalculations that routinely keep Louisiana prisoners behind bars after they complete their sentences.
Section 3 disqualification is justifiable as a democracy-limiting tool to protect democracy. But there are slippery-slope issues that deserve serious consideration.
A lawsuit to keep Donald Trump off the Florida primary ballot fails.
A federal circuit judge writes that Detroit's vehicle seizure scheme "is simply a money-making venture—one most often used to extort money from those who can least afford it."
Election law expert Derek Muller reminds us that we have seen these sorts of claims before.
The 11th Circuit rejected Sosa's constitutional claims, and he is asking the Supreme Court to intervene.
Civil forfeiture is a highly unaccountable practice. The justices have the opportunity to make it a bit less so.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
