We’ve detected that you’re using Internet Explorer. Please consider updating to a more modern browser to ensure the best user experience on our website.
Analysis: Supreme Court Oral Argument on Trump Ballot Ban

Analysis: Supreme Court Oral Argument on Trump Ballot Ban


Jordan Sekulow

February 8

3 min read

Election Law



All eyes are on the U.S. Supreme Court, where the Justices just heard oral arguments in the Trump ballot ban case. The ACLJ filed its final brief earlier this week in the case. Now we wait to hear the Justices’ decision.

Will the U.S. Supreme Court uphold the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to ban President Trump from the primary ballot? Will the far Left’s 14th Amendment argument prevail in denying Americans the right to vote for the candidate of their choice in the 2024 election?

Just to be clear, President Trump’s attorneys presented the oral arguments today. The ACLJ is part of the case but delivered its arguments in the brief that we filed.

Some significant moments stood out today. First, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (appointed by President Biden) focused on the list of officers that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applies to. She pointed out that the 14th Amendment clearly doesn’t include the President.

She also stressed the importance of the history of the 14th Amendment – it had been originally put in place to stop Confederate soldiers from attaining office because of their insurrectionist past.

You know what, folks? Her analysis was spot-on and coincided with the ACLJ’s brief arguments. The ACLJ argued that the 14th Amendment is not self-executing and does not apply to a President of the United States. One chief reason is a President appoints officers – the oath that Presidents take is distinct from the oath that officers take.

We also pointed out in our brief how Chief Justice John Roberts in 2010 asserted that “the people do not vote for the ‘Officers of the United States.’” It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out, considering what Chief Justice Roberts said 14 years ago.

In our opinion, Trump’s attorney, Jonathan Mitchell, didn’t make the strongest arguments regarding the 14th Amendment. He was a bit too aggressive in responding to the Justices and missed a lot of softballs that he could have knocked out of the park. Even Justice Jackson said she was surprised by Mitchell’s responses regarding the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

Despite this, the Justices seemed to pose more difficult questions to the opposing side regarding the 14th Amendment. Also, the Constitution clearly reinforces the ACLJ’s arguments in our briefs – even Justice Jackson, Justice Elena Kagan, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor all appeared to agree with aspects of our arguments.

We are optimistic about the outcome, but as you know, when it comes to the U.S. Supreme Court, nothing is guaranteed. I’m not exaggerating when I say their decision will affect future U.S. elections for generations. This case might involve President Trump specifically, but it will affect every American and every future election.

We remain vigilant in stopping the far Left’s greatest election interference attempt in U.S. history. Your right to vote for the candidate of your choice is at stake. We’ve extended a Matching Moment to DOUBLE any donations received. Donate now before our midnight deadline. Our fight for election integrity continues.

Today’s Sekulow broadcast provided a full analysis of the oral arguments that were presented today at the U.S. Supreme Court. Our expert team broke down the Justices’ responses.

Watch the full broadcast below:

close player