Analyzing the Dynamics of Supreme Court Opinions

On March 4, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Anderson, holding that states cannot disqualify Donald Trump from appearing on the presidential ballot under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Section 3 bars former officeholders who have since engaged in insurrection from taking future public office—and in recent months, a slew of lawsuits from voters and advocacy groups have pointed to the provision in seeking to strike Trump from the ballot in various states for his conduct on Jan. 6. The Court’s judgment rules out that possibility—but leaves a surprising amount of questions unsettled, in a way that may queue up chaos in the coming months.

To make sense of the Court’s ruling, Lawfare Senior Editor Quinta Jurecic spoke with fellow Senior Editor Roger Parloff, who has been closely watching the Section 3 cases; Ned Foley, an expert in election law at The Ohio State University; and Gerard Magliocca of Indiana University, who has been studying Section 3 since before it was cool. 

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.