During Thursday’s Supreme Court arguments on whether or not former President Donald Trump should remain on the ballot, citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson brought up the subject of insurrection.
Here’s what she asked Jonathan Mitchell, the lawyer representing Trump:
Jackson Brown: Does it have something to do with the fact that the particular circumstance that you’re talking about can change? Is that what you mean? I’m trying to understand the distinction between the provision in the Constitution that relates to disqualification on the basis of insurrection behavior and these other provisions that Justice [Sonia Sotomayor] points out. They all seem to me to be extant, constitutional requirements. But you’re drawing a distinction.Mitchell: I’m drawing a distinction because some of them are categorical.Jackson Brown: What do you mean by categorical? Whether or not you are an insurrectionist is or is not categorical?Mitchell: It is not categorical because–Jackson Brown: Because?Mitchell: Because Congress can lift the disability by a two thirds vote.Jackson Brown: But why does that change the initial determination of whether or not you fall into that category? I don’t understand the fact that you can be excused from having been in the category. Why does that not make it a categorical, determination?Mitchell: Because we don’t know whether President Trump will be excused before he’s sworn in if
he wins the election on January 20th, 2025. And a court that is saying that President Trump has to show now, today, that he would qualify under Section 3, is accelerating the deadline that the Constitution provides for him to obtain a waiver from Congress.Jackson Brown: But that is by virtue of the hold. Right? Hold office.Mitchell: Correct.Jackson Brown: Section 3 bans him only from holding office.
After Justice Jackson Brown’s comments, Justice Elena Kagan asked about when there will be time to discuss “officer stuff,” which Chief Justice John Roberts assured them they would “absolutely” get to it, which got a laugh.
Watch the clip above via Fox News.
Listen to the oral arguments at the Supreme Court here.