Trump Supreme Court eligibility win could decimate his immunity hopes: legal scholars

With the Supreme Court likely poised to hand former President Donald Trump a big win by keeping him on the ballot in November 2024 despite his role in inciting the January 6th Capitol riots, several legal scholars say it could come at a cost.

Following the hearing before the full court on Thursday, the consensus among court watchers is that there is no chance the court will uphold a Colorado Supreme Court order banishing the former president from the ballots in the state based upon provisions found in the 14th Amendment.

As the New York Times' Adam Liptak wrote, a ruling in Trump's favor should be issued swiftly and next up for the embattled ex-president should be hearing an appeal after the three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals shot down his bid for absolute immunity for acts committed while president.

According to one law professor, ruling for Trump on eligibility could push the court to "even" things out on the controversial cases by denying his appeal or hearing it and ruling against him.

ALSO READ: Alina Habba is persona non grata at her Pennsylvania law school

Speaking with the Times, University of Texas law professor Tara Leigh Grove said she sees the two cases as being "linked."

“History tells us that the Supreme Court does better with the public — in other words, is seen as more legitimate — when it does not rule repeatedly just for ‘one side’ of the political aisle,” she explained. “So I anticipate that the justices will welcome a kind of ‘split decision’ in these cases. That is, the court can rule that President Trump remains on the ballot, and yet has no immunity from federal criminal prosecution.”

UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar, who filed an amicus brief supporting Colorado, agreed while expressing dismay with how Thursday's hearing went.

“Unfortunately, it seems the justices may be coalescing around some analytically weak arguments as a way of disposing of this case in a way they think will avoid expending the court’s scarce political capital,” he stated before adding, "There’s no logical connection between the issues in this case and those in the immunity case but a cynic might say ruling for Trump here frees up the court to rule against him there.”

You can read more here.