Unpacking the Supreme Court’s Fourteenth Amendment Ruling

The Lawfare Podcast

The Lawfare Institute

Law, Terrorism, History, Politics, News, National Security, Foreign Policy, Intelligence, Diplomacy, International Law, International Relations, Constitutional Law, Rule Of Law, Current Events, Government, Military

4.7 • 6.4K Ratings

🗓️ 11 March 2024

⏱️ 51 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

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.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	The following podcast contains advertising.
0:04.0	To access an ad-free version of the Lawfair Podcast,
0:08.0	become a material supporter of Lawfair at Patreon.com slash Lawfair. That's Patreon.com
0:16.4	slash Lawfair. Also check out Lawfair's other podcast offerings, rational security, chatter, lawfare no bull, and the aftermath. Hello everybody my name is
0:39.6	my name is Jacob Collier and I just wanted to quickly let you know that my brand new album
0:43.0	Jesse volume 4 is out now. See you're all out for the battle.
0:53.0	I don't think about.
0:55.0	I don't think about. And so the question still remains if members of Congress in their judgment believe that the winning candidate
1:16.6	in the electoral college is ineligible to serve, do they have the power under the 12th and
1:22.2	20th amendments and the statute that exists the
1:24.9	ECRA to make sure that an unqualified person never takes the oath on January 20th.
1:32.3	I don't think the procuring January 20th. I don't think the per curiam opinion was successful in foreclosing
1:36.3	that issue as much as it probably tried to do so, but that's what provoked the wrath of the
1:42.2	three liberals.
1:43.0	I'm Quinta Jaresic, a senior editor at Law Fair.
1:47.0	And this is the Law Fair podcast, March 11, 2024.
1:52.0	On March 4th, 2024.
1:52.9	On March 4th, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Anderson, holding that states cannot
1:57.7	disqualify Donald Trump from appearing on the presidential ballot under Section 3 of
2:02.4	the 14th Amendment.
2:05.0	Section 3 bars former office holders who have since engaged in insurrection from taking future
2:09.6	public office, and in recent months a slew of lawsuits from voters and advocacy groups have pointed
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from The Lawfare Institute, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of The Lawfare Institute and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.