Campaign facing the end?

Supreme Court rules on Trump’s candidacy

Violent riots are feared in the event of a ruling against Trump.

(Bild: AFP)

Several US states want to remove Donald Trump from the ballot. The matter has now reached the highest court in the USA, the Supreme Court. A ruling against the ex-president could rule him out of democratic elections forever. What are the chances?

The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about Donald Trump's participation in the primaries for the Republican presidential candidacy. At the hearing on Thursday (4 p.m. CET), the judges will take up a request from the former president and current presidential candidate.

Trump turned to the court to overturn a ruling from the state of Colorado that he was disqualified from the 2021 primary because of his role in the attack on the US Capitol.

Did Trump take part in a riot?
The US constitution regulates who can become president. The person must be a native-born citizen, at least 35 years old and have lived in the USA for at least 14 years. So far, so clear. But then there is the so-called prohibition of insurrection in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. It states, in essence, that no one may hold a higher office in the state who has previously participated in an insurrection against the state as a public official.

Trump gave an inflammatory speech before storming the Capitol.

(Bild: AP)

The 77-year-old Donald Trump wants to return to the White House after the presidential election in November. However, opponents of the Republican argue that he has forfeited his right to become president again with his behavior surrounding the storming of the Capitol. They have been successful with corresponding efforts - for example in the state of Colorado. The highest election supervisor in Maine made a similar decision.

In Michigan and Minnesota, however, attempts to disqualify Trump failed. Corresponding lawsuits are still pending elsewhere. The ball is now in the country's Supreme Court's court.

Highest court decides on US election
This Thursday, the nine judges in Washington will hear the arguments of both sides - but a decision will not be made until later. However, it is now up to the Supreme Court to decide on the progress of the presidential election in the USA. The question of Trump's disqualification from the presidency is not only legally tricky - it is politically explosive, could further divide US society in the election year and push the political system to its limits.

The country's Supreme Court likes to present itself as impartial and unbiased. During his time in office, Trump had the opportunity to appoint three new judges to the Supreme Court. He opted for arch-conservative and deeply religious candidates, potentially shifting the majorities on the court far to the right for decades. Only three of the nine judges are assigned to the liberal camp.

Trump's judges turn back the clocks
In this constellation of appointments, the court has often ruled in favor of religious plaintiffs, weakened the protection of minorities and, for example, overturned the right to abortion, which had been in force for around 50 years. As a result, the court has lost approval among the population according to surveys. Nevertheless, it has not always ruled in Trump's favor - for example when it came to the release of his tax documents.

There are roughly three questions to be answered in the case about Trump's suitability to be president:

1. The first is whether the Insurrection Clause in the Constitution applies to presidents. Although some examples of such higher offices are mentioned in the passage, the office of president is not explicitly listed.
2. Secondly, it must be clarified whether the storming of the Capitol on 6 January 2021 is to be considered an insurrection. Trump's supporters had stormed the seat of parliament in Washington at the time. Trump had previously incited his supporters during a speech.
3. Thirdly, if this event were to be classified as a riot, it would have to be clarified whether Trump took part in it.

However, experts assume that the court will not answer any of these questions. The case is too politically charged for that. "I think there will be a technical ruling," says law professor Aaron Tang from Stanford University in California in an interview with Deutsche Presse-Agentur. This means that the Supreme Court would avoid the central questions in order to avoid making itself politically vulnerable. "You can think of it as an emergency exit, as a way for the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Trump that is not politically explosive." Tang assumes that the court will side with Trump.

Responsibility lies with the US Congress
Tang and other lawyers suspect that the Supreme Court could see Congress as being responsible for the question of suitability as president. A possible ruling could mean that the US Congress would first have to pass a corresponding law before the insurrection clause could be applied. Trump's opponents argue that a law is not needed before the Constitution can be applied. And some experts warn against shifting responsibility to Congress in such polarized times. Lawyers who have taken a stand in Trump's favor at the Supreme Court also think little of such a solution.

There are a number of other ways in which the court could ultimately rule. It could also declare Trump fit for the presidency and still take a position on the nature of the storming of the Capitol. The justices could just as easily find that the Insurrection Clause does not apply to presidents. 

Violence feared in ruling against Trump
And, of course, there is also the possibility that the Supreme Court will rule that Trump is not fit to be president. He could then continue to run, and under certain legal circumstances his name could perhaps even appear on the ballot. But the Republican is unlikely to become President of the USA again.

Experts believe that it is absolutely unlikely that the Supreme Court will make such a ruling. Some also fear political violence - the storming of the Capitol has shown just how far Trump and his supporters are prepared to go. For lawyer Tang, such a ruling would be a "world-changing decision".