As of: February 11, 2024, 5:08 a.m
By: Jens Kiffmeier, Florian Naumann, Daniel Dillmann, Christian Stör
Comments
Press
Split
The Supreme Court begins the hearing about Donald Trump's participation in the 2024 US election with a clear indication of a possible verdict.
Statement
after
hearing
: Former President Donald Trump issues statement after hearing before the Supreme Court
Trump's case
concerns
the US Supreme Court
: Judges express doubts about jurisdiction and refer to Congress
Hearing
before the
Supreme Court
: Will Donald Trump be excluded from the US election?
Update from February 8th, 1:03 p.m.:
A ruling by the US Supreme Court is still pending.
Donald Trump is already facing new trouble in the 2024 US election campaign. In New York state, a group of lawyers has filed a complaint against his candidacy in the Republican primaries.
The aim of the complaint is to exclude Trump from the primaries there, as the news portal
Newsweek
reports.
Update from February 8th, 9:37 a.m.:
During his appearance after the hearing before the Supreme Court, Donald Trump rekindled old enmities.
The ex-president told the reporters present that “the insurrection [on January 6th] was triggered by Nancy Pelosi.”
Trump did not give an explanation as to why the former Speaker of the House of Representatives and Democratic faction leader was to blame for the storming of the Capitol by thousands of Trump supporters.
Donald Trump speaks out after hearing before the Supreme Court
Update from February 8th, 7:25 a.m.:
Point victory in court, clear success in another area code:
Regardless of the
Hearing before the Supreme Court over a possible exclusion from the US presidential election, Donald continued his triumphant march.
The former US President also won the Republican primary in the US state of Nevada and once again relegated his competitor Nikki Haley to second place, as broadcasters CNN and NBC News unanimously reported, citing their own forecasts.
Confident of victory after the hearing before the Supreme Court: Donald Trump.
© Rebecca Blackwell/dpa
The US Supreme Court is currently deciding whether Trump can actually run in the US election.
In some states, Trump was out of the primaries because of his possible involvement in the storming of the Capitol after the last presidential election.
The highest judges should now check whether this is legal.
At a first hearing on Thursday, however, a majority expressed considerable doubts.
Trump acknowledged the pointer with satisfaction: “I believe in our country and I believe in the Supreme Court, and I think our arguments were very strong,” he told reporters in Florida.
The ex-president did not appear in Washington in person.
Hearing before the Supreme Court: Judge argues with Trump lawyer
Update from February 8th, 10:30 p.m.:
Aside from detailed legal questions, the hearing on the possible exclusion of Donald Trump from the presidential election provided a moment that received much attention in the USA: According to an audio recording of the hearing, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson asked lawyer Jonathan Mitchell why In his opinion, the storming of the Capitol was not an “insurrection”.
My news
NATO response to Putin's air strikes: Experts fear a quick shot read
Emergency for Putin's troops: Swedish tank mixes up the front
In just two sentences: German Russia expert exposes Putin after reading an interview
“War must be brought to Russia”: CDU expert calls for escalation – against the worst case scenario
If Russia's army wins: German authorities play through mass influx of Ukraine refugees
Explosive US report: Russians are said to have destroyed 26 Leopard tanks in Ukraine read
For an insurrection in the present sense, it must be an “organized, concerted effort to overthrow the government of the United States by force,” explained Mitchell.
“So a chaotic measure isn’t a riot?” Jackson asked.
The lawyer explained that it was not an attempt at a coup.
It's about a "unrest" - albeit about "criminal" and "violent acts."
In this sequence, Jackson made it clear how serious and threatening to democracy she considered the events,
CNN
reporter Paula Reid told the TV audience.
“That was a pivotal moment,” she said.
It is not to be expected that the court will deal with these questions in greater depth - but the extent of the riots has made it into the court records.
Trump's case before the Supreme Court: Judges are already giving the first hint in the hearing
Update from February 8th, 9:20 p.m.:
The nine judges of the US Supreme Court may have already given a hint in the first hearing on the question of a possible exclusion of Donald Trump from the presidential candidacy: The majority of them appeared skeptical in the two-hour hearing.
Both conservative and liberal judges expressed concerns about whether individual states would be able to decide which candidates would be allowed to run in November, according to the
AFP
news agency .
Jonathan Mitchell, former deputy attorney general of the state of Texas and Trump's representative, emphasized that only the US Congress can disqualify a candidate.
The Colorado Supreme Court's decision was "wrong and should be overturned."
Conservative court president John Roberts warned of “troubling consequences” if the Colorado ruling is upheld.
Jason Murry, attorney for the Colorado voters who brought the case to court, called for Trump's expulsion, citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
According to this, no person may hold public office if he or she has taken part in an “insurrection or insurrection” against the Constitution after taking an oath to defend it.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan and other justices also seemed skeptical.
“The question is why a single state should decide who becomes president of the United States,” Kagan said to Murry.
Update from February 8th, 4:52 p.m.:
Jonathan Mitchell, Donald Trump's lawyer, spoke at the start of the hearing before the Supreme Court.
From the defense attorney's point of view, US states do not have the right to exclude candidates from the US election - even if they are "convicted insurrectionists".
It is up to the US Congress to decide.
Previously, Chief Justice Sonia Sotomayor offered a different view of the situation in her opening statement.
States have barred people from public office in the past, citing the 14th Amendment, said the judge who was once appointed by Barack Obama.
Barricades protect Supreme Court buildings during hearings in the Donald Trump case
Update from February 8th, 4:14 p.m.:
The hearing in the case of Donald Trump will begin shortly in the Supreme Court.
Barricades are already being erected in front of the US Supreme Court building.
This is reported by the US news channel
CNN
.
Apparently the authorities are expecting larger protests.
So far, the situation outside the courtroom in Washington, DC is said to be calm.
Only a handful of people were there, reports
CNN
.
Donald Trump, here after a court case in New York, is currently also on the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC.
© Laura Brett/dpa
Supreme Court schedules hearing in Donald Trump's case
Update from February 8th, 2:22 p.m.:
The US Supreme Court will consider today from 4:00 p.m. CET the question of whether Donald Trump can be excluded from the Republican primaries because of his role in the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
It is currently completely unclear when the Supreme Court will make its decision.
But it will definitely apply to all states.
This would also invalidate the petition of New York City officials, who, according to
Newsweek,
also filed a complaint with the New York Supreme Court on February 6 to exclude Trump from the primaries.
Supreme Court hearing on Trump's exclusion from Republican primaries
First report from February 8th
: Washington, DC – The election year in the USA is only a few weeks old.
But the first drama has already begun - in front of the country's Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is deciding on the question of whether Donald Trump can be excluded from the US election in November because of his role in the attacks on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
The background is the so-called ban on insurrection in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
In essence, it says that no one who has previously been “involved in an insurrection” as an official may hold a higher office in the state.
Several groups have relied on this to have Trump removed from the ballot in the Republican primaries.
They also had success with this in Colorado.
The Supreme Court there decided that Trump should be disqualified from the Republican primary in that state.
However, Trump appealed the decision.
That's why the verdict is suspended for now.
Only when the highest authority in the country has ruled will it be clear whether Trump can move into the White House again.
Hearing before the Supreme Court: Can Donald Trump become US President again?
On February 8th the time has come.
The nine judges in Washington, DC will hear arguments from both sides starting at 4 p.m. CET.
The hearing is scheduled to last 80 minutes but will likely last longer, according to Amy Howe, an expert on U.S. constitutional law.
A decision will only be made later, possibly in the coming days.
The verdict should be available no later than Super Tuesday on March 5th, when Colorado and 14 other states as well as American Samoa hold their primaries.
However, it is often clear during a hearing before the Supreme Court in which direction the pendulum will swing.
Although the Colorado case is before the Supreme Court, the impact of the court's ruling is likely to be far broader.
After all, Maine also decided in December to exclude Trump from the primary election.
Trump is also expected to be disqualified in eleven other states.
Members of the Supreme Court |
Appointed by President |
|---|---|
John Roberts (Chairman) |
George W Bush (R) |
Clarence Thomas |
George H. W. Bush (R) |
Samuel Alito |
George W Bush (R) |
Sonia Sotomayor |
Barack Obama (D) |
Elena Kagan |
Barack Obama (D) |
Neil Gorsuch |
Donald Trump (R) |
Brett Kavanaugh |
Donald Trump (R) |
Amy Coney Barrett |
Donald Trump (R) |
Ketanji Brown Jackson |
Joe Biden (D) |
Supreme Court decides whether Donald Trump will be excluded from the US election
But how will the Supreme Court decide?
According to Politico
, most experts
expect the conservative-dominated Supreme Court to overturn the Colorado ruling in one way or another.
However, a clear answer cannot be expected in politically explosive times.
Trump himself has already warned the Supreme Court of “chaos and tumult” if a decision is made against him.
“I think there will be a technical verdict,” said law professor Aaron Tang from Stanford University in California in an interview with the
German Press Agency
.
You could imagine it “like an emergency exit”, as a route “that is not politically explosive”.
According to dpa
, Tang
also assumes that the court will in principle side with Trump.
For example, the justices could determine that the Insurrection Clause does not apply to presidents.
Although the text gives some examples of the offices affected, the office of president is not explicitly listed.
On the other hand, the clause contains a general provision prohibiting insurgents from holding “any civil or military office in the United States.”
Supreme Court could blame Congress in Donald Trump case
It cannot be ruled out that the Supreme Court will refer the question to Congress.
The clause itself says nothing about who decides whether a person is to be considered a rebel.
Trump's lawyers also argue, as
Politico
writes, that any disqualification must follow a procedure prescribed by Congress.
State courts should not be allowed to make their own judgments.
The Supreme Court could therefore decide that Congress would first have to pass a corresponding law before the Insurrection Clause could be applied.
But such a decision could be problematic.
A half-hearted statement that leaves the decision to Congress “is a risk that involves playing with dynamite,” said lawyer Josh Blackman, according to
dpa,
at an event organized by the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation.
“I would like the court to find a clean solution.”
The Supreme Court could also exclude Donald Trump from the US election
There are many other ways the court can ultimately rule.
The Supreme Court could even determine that Trump is not suitable for the office of president.
He could then continue to run, but would not be allowed to become president again.
However, that hardly seems conceivable.
Lawyer Aaron Tang made it clear to the
German Press Agency
what that would mean: Such a verdict would be a “world-changing decision”.
(cs)