Supreme Court to hear Trump ballot case that could upend 2024 presidential election

Read the Full Transcript

• Amna Nawaz:

  There is a major development in a case that could upend the 2024 presidential election. The U.S. 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 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 4-3 margin. Did you expect the court to take up the appeal? And what's the question that they're seeking to answer?

• Sarah Krissoff, Former Assistant U.S. Attorney:

  Yes, I'm not surprised that the court is going to address this case.

  It is — and they're going to do it quickly, right? They have moved quickly here. They're going to expect briefing and arguments quickly, because this is just a matter of national importance. And we have these primaries sort of 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.

• Amna Nawaz:

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

• Sarah Krissoff:

  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 are 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 sort of how much — I think they're going to devote a lot of time and attention to this between now and then. And they can — they surely can get it done if they want to get it done.

• Amna Nawaz:

  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?

• Sarah Krissoff:

  It could.

  So, I mean, they haven't — the Supreme Court has an opportunity here. They can make an — they can issue a narrow decision. They could make it — 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, sort of given these other suits on the horizon, given the Maine case, that they will endeavor to issue a broader decision to give some guidance to these other states about ballot access.

• Amna Nawaz:

  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's 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?

• Sarah Krissoff:

  So, I mean, I think that really ties into your last question.

  This ballot access issues and election laws is so state-specific. So, we have really different processes in each state to — in each, frankly, locale, individual locale, small towns, villages, things like that, to determine access. 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 decisions, some of these other actions coming out of different states as well.

• Amna Nawaz:

  Well, former President Trump's appeal is largely based on two elements, right? One is enforceability. The appeal says that — quote — "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?

• Sarah Krissoff:

  Listen, I think there are — the Trump team has some good arguments to make.

  And there's — the Supreme Court is operating without a lot of guideposts here, right? There is not a lot of law on these issues, so they are free to make new law, and I expect them to do so.

• Amna Nawaz:

  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.

• Sarah Krissoff:

  Listen, I think that's where the Supreme Court may come out. They may sort of 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 they're — I think they may interpret the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in such a way to punt this back to the voters.

• Amna Nawaz:

  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.

• Sarah Krissoff:

  Thank you.