Legal expert reveals how Trump’s SCOTUS justices benefit by disqualifying him from ballot

Former President Donald Trump has, on multiple occasions, called on the three justices he appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States — Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — to rule in his favor in the Colorado Anderson v. Griswold case. But according to one legal expert, there's more in it for the three justices and the Court to disqualify him.

According to a recent essay in Politico by Yale University law professor Bruce Ackerman, Trump's three appointed justices, while reliably conservative on most issues, may be able to eke out two wins with one decision: By disqualifying Trump, they can not only bolster their own credibility as independent jurists, but they can also prove that SCOTUS is above partisan influence and improve the Court's reputation among the public.

Ackerman argued that the conservative legal doctrine of "originalism," which Trump's three SCOTUS appointees all said they adhered to in their Senate confirmation hearings, necessitates upholding the Colorado Supreme Court's disqualification of the ex-president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution (the insurrection clause).

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

The Federalist Society (which produced five of SCOTUS' six conservative justices), defined originalism as "a theory of Constitutional interpretation that places primacy on the meaning of the text of the Constitution." Ackerman argued an originalist interpretation of the insurrection clause — which states that no one can hold any federal office, whether "civilian or military," who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States — would make disqualification the only option.

"This reality requires the Supreme Court to confront a fundamental dilemma and poses a huge test for Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett," Ackerman wrote. "After all, many Americans will ask, if 'originalism' is compelling enough for the new majority to strip women of control over their bodies, why isn’t it compelling enough to strip Trump of control over the country?"

Ackerman further argued that SCOTUS' decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022 did a lot of damage to its reputation as a neutral and non-partisan interpreter of the Constitution. And SCOTUS' legitimacy has been questioned not just by liberals, but by conservatives as well, with Alabama initially defying the Court's order to draw a second predominantly Black congressional district and now Texas Governor Greg Abbott blatantly disregarding SCOTUS' decision to remove razor wire along the Southern border. Ackerman wrote that disqualifying Trump will help SCOTUS re-establish its legitimacy and prove that it isn't beholden to either party.

"[I]f the three Trump appointees stick to their originalist principles and vote to disqualify him from office, the justices would actually strengthen American democracy and might help ease the country’s sharp divides — while also bolstering a beleaguered Supreme Court," he wrote.

READ MORE: 'Remove him from the ballot': Conservative urges SCOTUS to disqualify Trump for 'sedition'

Click here to read Ackerman's essay in full.