Could history impact the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on Trump's ballot eligibility?

After the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that the 14th Amendment excludes former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot, historical context might tell a different story.

The GOP frontrunner asked the Supreme Court to overturn a bombshell decision that could keep him off that state's ballot - and potentially others - over his actions connected to the violence at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was utilized by the Colorado Supreme Court to reach its decision, but a look into the time frame in which it was created has the potential to reverse that decision, according to a U.S. history expert.

What does Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution say?

The legal rationale as to why Trump wouldn’t be allowed to hold office is based on a Civil War-era clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

Doug Sheflin, associate teaching professor in the history department at Colorado State University, believes a significant factor that will come into play regarding Trump’s eligibility to hold office is the historical context behind this century-old language.

“We have to remember that back then, the United States didn’t know where it was going and what it was to become, and now it’s a very different context,” Sheflin said.

What does the Civil War-era clause actually mean?

“The Civil War ends in 1865 and thus begins the period we call Reconstruction. It leads to one of the biggest debates regarding the aftermath of the war, which is how insurrectionists should be punished,” Sheflin said.

Some wanted revenge on those who fought for the South, whereas others, like former President Abraham Lincoln, were lenient on the insurrectionists, Sheflin said.

“Some want them to pay financially, pay with their honor, pay politically — and ultimately, this section was created as a compromise. So, if you were deemed an insurrectionist, you were not able to run for office to uphold this part of the Constitution, but this is in 1868, so the war was still fresh in their minds,” Sheflin said.

How could that context impact the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on whether Trump is eligible to be on the ballot?

According to Sheflin, the sticky part is figuring out how Section 3 applies to the modern era.

One primary concern is what happened historically because of the 14th Amendment and if the violence that followed is doomed to repeat itself.

“The Ku Klux Klan started up because they weren’t allowed to participate in Congress,” Sheflin said. “So, it created this division, and I think that’s something that needs to be taken into consideration.”

Sheflin doesn’t claim to know how violence might intertwine with today’s case, but with a close look into how the use of this amendment played out in history, he said it all comes down to how the government handles it now.

“Insurrection was an easy thing to prove back then, but this is different,” Sheflin said. “What we know in this world is everything will be litigated until its completion, but back then, if you wore a grey uniform, it was a pretty obvious line, and now it’s quite blurred.”

25 states share disapproval over Colorado Supreme Court’s decision

Officials from 25 states recently signed an amicus brief delivered to the U.S. Supreme Court that argues the decision should be reversed because of “a serious blow to the Constitution’s structural separation of powers.”

The insurrection clause in the Constitution states, “Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” The amicus brief utilizes this statement to justify a reversal in the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision that bars Trump from the election ballots.

“Only Congress can disqualify a person from holding office under Section 3. At least to this point, Congress has not seen fit to do so as to the events of January 6. The Colorado decision overrides that choice,” the brief states.

The brief concludes that Colorado’s decision to remove Trump only invites more judicial meddling and loss of confidence in the judiciary.

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments starting Feb. 8.