Supreme Court to Hear Trump Ballot Case Transcript

Welcome to the NewsHour. There's a major development tonight and a case that could upend the 2024 presidential election. The US Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether Donald Trump can be barred from the ballot. The former President's eligibility has been challenged in dozens of states. While many of those have been dismissed, Maine and Colorado have disqualified him under the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment. The justices will hear arguments in the Colorado case next month. For more on what this means for the former president, for the courts and for voters, I'm joined now by former federal prosecutor, Sarah Krissoff. Sarah, walk us through what you expect to see now the Supreme Court has decided to take up this case. The Colorado State Supreme Court was decided narrowly on a four to three margin. Did you expect the court to take up the appeal and what's the question that they're seeking to answer?

Yeah, I'm not surprised that the court is going to address this case and they're going to do it quickly, right? They've moved quickly here. They're going to expect briefing and arguments quickly because this is just a matter of national importance. And then we have these primaries looming on the horizon. So I'm not surprised they're going to address this. The problem is they have a lot to address. There are a lot of open questions. There's very little case law for them to go on, and so there's a lot of work for them to be doing in the next month or so.

You say they should be moving quickly. Oral arguments are expected to begin on February 8th. What does that mean for a timeline? How soon after could we see a decision?

Listen, by the time they're at the oral argument stage, they may have a decision drafted. They may have a very good idea of where they're heading and if they want to test out their decision in the courtroom. So they may be able to issue a decision very quickly after that. It just depends how much. I think they're going to devote a lot of time and attention to this between now and then, and they surely can get it done if they want to get it done.

So there are a number of other states weighing this same question. Would the Supreme Court decision impact those other states? If they uphold Colorado's decision, would that mean it opens the doors for other state Supreme Courts to also remove him from their ballot?

It could. The Supreme Court has an opportunity here. They can issue a narrow decision. They could issue a decision simply on the process in Colorado or a very narrow interpretation of something of Colorado law, or they could issue a much broader decision that would have broader application. I expect given these other suits on Horizon, given the main case that they will endeavor to issue a broader decision to give some guidance to these other states about ballot access.

Sarah, when you step back and you look at these two states where the decision has been made, they were made in very different ways, right? The Colorado decision to remove him was made by the State Supreme Court. In Maine, it was the Democratic Secretary of State who made the decision to disqualify him also on the basis of that insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment. Is there a common standard or a common question being answered as each state weighs this same question?

I mean, I think that really ties into your last question. This ballot access issues and election lawsuit is so state specific. So we have really different processes in each state and each, frankly locale, individual locales, small towns, villages, things like that to determine access. And so all of a sudden that is coming to a head here. And so we're seeing very different processes play out. But I expect the Supreme Court is going to try to issue a broad enough decision to embrace some of these other actions coming out of different states as well.

Well, former President Trump's appeal is largely based on two elements, right? One is enforceability. The appeal says that the question of eligibility to serve as the president of the United States is properly reserved for Congress, not the state courts to consider and to decide. And the other argument, Sarah, here is just the wording of the 14th amendment. They argued the president is not technically an officer of the United States as the language specifies, that it wasn't an insurrection, so he didn't engage in insurrection. Do those arguments hold water in your view?

Listen, I think the Trump team has some good arguments to make, and the Supreme Court is operating without a lot of guideposts here, right? There is not a lot of law on these issues. So they're free to make new law and I expect them to do so.

And in your view, is this the kind of decision courts should be weighing on this is the question we hear again and again, whether this should be left up to the voters to ultimately decide?

Listen, I think that's where the Supreme Court may come out. They may punt this back to the voters and say, this was not the purview of the states to block the former president from the ballot here, but I think they may interpret the Section three of the 14th amendment in such a way to punt this back to the voters.

We will be waiting and watching for sure. That is former federal prosecutor, Sarah Krissoff joining us tonight. Thank you so much for your time and insights.

Thank you.