Trump has lost badly when the 14th Amendment was applied: legal scholar

In a column for MSNBC, Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson pointed out that, in all of the challenges so far to Donald Trump's eligibility to be on the 2024 ballot, only twice has Section 3 of the 14th Amendment been taken into consideration.

And the former president is 0 for 2 in those cases.

As the legal scholar notes, in Colorado, the state supreme court applied 14th Amendment of the Constitution in its ruling to boot Trump from the ballot. In Maine, Secretary of State Shenna Lee Bellows also applied it in making the same determination.

In the other states that have balked at making the move, their decision was based on procedural considerations and have not delved deeply into what the Constitution plainly states — and that is a critical fact when it comes to Supreme Court review.

"Colorado and Maine are not the only states that considered challenges to Trump’s eligibility. Michigan, Arizona, Minnesota, and to a certain extent, California, have all dealt with challenges and opted to keep him on the ballot. But those cases shouldn’t be viewed as legal triumphs for Trump," she wrote. "In each example, the decisions were based on procedural grounds and confined to the primary ballot, not the general election ballot. These decisions, simply put, should provide no solace for any Supreme Court justices seeking to overturn the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court."

ALSO READ: Trump’s Iowa Faith Leader Coalition includes bigots, advocate of killing Obama

According to Levinson, the Supreme Court may have the "last word" on Trump's eligibility but the very fact that Colorado and Maine took it to the 14th Amendment level should carry weight with the court.

"The Supreme Court should acknowledge that the judges and election officials who confronted the legal question of Trump’s eligibility for the presidency are not divided," she pointed out. "The decisions in the states that opted to allow Trump to appear on the primary election ballot were based on procedural reasons, not on any analysis of the 14th Amendment. The two substantive legal decisions grappling with insurrection and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment have both gone against Trump. And the Supreme Court should follow their lead."

You can read more here.