The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in Thompson v. United States, a case that disputes a presidential candidate’s eligibility based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The case is the first time the Court has taken up the Reconstruction-era insurrection clause since it was ratified in 1868. Legal experts have said they expect the ruling to set a precedent for how state constitutional ballot qualifications are applied in future elections.
Colorado’s Controversial Ruling Revisited
The foundation for the case is the Colorado Supreme Court ruling in 2024 that removed from the primary ballots a candidate who was accused of violating Section 3’s ban on office holding by those who “engaged in insurrection. The action by the Court to grant certiorari follows challenges in at least a dozen other states, and effectively makes for a patchwork quilt of rules about ballot access before the election in November.
Justice Department Submits Unexpected Brief
In a head-scratching moment, Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Justice Department filed an amicus brief arguing that such Section 3 enforcement is necessary based on a congressional act. The 32-page filing argues that the clause was not supposed to be “self-executing,” the exact opposite of the argument advanced by plaintiffs in a number of state cases. Constitutional scholars say this position is consistent with an 1800s opinion by Attorney General Henry Stanbery, but in direct contradiction of the way lower courts have interpreted the issue in recent years.
Historical Analysis Takes Center Stage
The Court has directed the extraordinary extension to base-line original intent, appointing Stanford historian Dr. Eleanor Chang as special master to safeguard the Reconstruction-era for analysis. Those include previously bypassed records from the congressional debates of 1866-68 that found stark divisions on whether states could independently enforce the clause. National Archives researchers recently unearthed handwritten notes of Senator Jacob Howard, the author of section one of the 14th Amendment, indicating that the amendment’s framers intended for the Amendment to include congressional enforcement language.
State Legislatures Rush Contingency Plans
As certification deadlines near, at least eight state legislatures have offered emergency measures to clarify who is eligible to appear on a ballot. The Georgia House passed a bill today that would require “conviction-level due process” before any Section 3 disqualification, while the New Hampshire Senate approved legislation that would base ballot access only on constitutional age and residency requirements. Those moves reflect a concern that has been growing in recent weeks: that if the Supreme Court does not offer clear guidance before convention season, there could be electoral chaos.
Financial Markets Show Election Anxiety
The CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) jumped 18% after news of the Court’s involvement, its biggest one-day increase since 2020. Bond traders say demand is growing for short-term Treasury bills that will pay out after Election Day, and the U.S. dollar has dropped against major currencies. “Investors worry constitutional uncertainty could lead to post-election instability,” Morgan Stanley chief strategist Michael Wilson said in a client note.
Grassroots Movements Mobilize
Progressive groups have said they will hold a “Defend Democracy” march in Washington on the day of oral arguments, and conservative organizations plan “Let the People Decide” rallies in swing states. The dueling protests are indicative of how the debate over the 14th Amendment has evolved into a proxy fight over larger democratic norms. Hashtag analysis on social media has #RebelionE14 at the top trending topic nationwide, and was mentioned over 1.2 million times in 24 hours.
International Observers Express Concern
The Organization of American States has sent its first pre-election assessment team ever to the country to follow the legal case. Chinese state media, in turn, has ratcheted up coverage of the constitutional crisis, with Global Times publishing a front-page analysis under the headline, “American Democracy’s Stress Test.” At State Department briefings, European allies have made quiet queries about contingency planning.
Legal Scholars Divided on Outcomes
Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe predicts the Court will provide clarity by setting a “clear and present danger” marker on Section 3 applications, while former federal judge Michael Luttig, for his part, says the justices could kick the can down the road by deciding the provision doesn’t apply to presidential elections. A third faction thinks that the Court could dodge a substantive ruling altogether by citing the “political question” doctrine.
