Legal scholar: SCOTUS decision to review Colorado ballot ruling is 'monumental'

On, Thursday, February 8, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that excludes 2024 GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump from the state ballot based on Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. Under Section 3, an "officer" who has engaged in "insurrection" is barred from running for certain positions.

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows agrees with the Colorado decision and has barred Trump from the ballot in her state. But Michigan and California, on the other hand, have decided that Trump can remain on their ballots.

Trump appealed the Colorado ruling, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

Legal scholar Derek Muller, who teaches at Notre Dame University, discussed the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to take the case in an interview with The Conversation.

When The Conversation asked Muller how "big" this is on a "scale of 1 to 10," Muller responded, "In terms of potential impact, it's a 10. It is excluding a former president from appearing on the ballot for engaging in insurrection. That's monumental for several reasons."

Muller continued, "It's the first major and material use of this provision of the Constitution since the Civil War. It's the first time it has kept a presidential candidate off the ballot, much less a former one and the apparent frontrunner for the Republican Party nomination. But on the flip side, what are the odds of that actually happening? That's more speculative. And so, the number is probably less than 10."

The legal scholar stressed that it remains to be seen what the High Court justices will ultimately decide.

READ MORE: Legal expert: SCOTUS punting immunity question to lower court is actually 'bad news' for Trump

Muller told The Conversation, "There are a couple of very narrow grounds the Court might rule on. For example, they might say: We're not ready to hear this case because it's only a primary, or Colorado so abused its own state procedures as to run afoul of federal constitutional rules. Those would be kind of rulings only applicable to the Colorado case or only applicable in the primaries. There's a chance the Court does this, but my sense — not to speculate too much — is that's going to be deeply unsatisfying for the Court, knowing that if they delay in this case, another case is likely coming later in the summer where these questions will have to be addressed in August or September. That's much closer to the general election."

READ MORE: Trump's lawyer argues a president could assassinate a political rival and not be prosecuted

Read The Conversation's full interview with Derek Muller at this link.