Renowned conservative and former federal appellate judge, J. Michael Luttig, is urging the Supreme Court to bar Donald Trump from appearing on the 2024 election ballot.

Luttig contends that Trump's efforts to retain power after the 2020 election loss constitute a more extensive insurrection than South Carolina's secession, which triggered the Civil War.

Retired conservative federal judge urges Supreme Court to disqualify Trump from officehttps://t.co/n1Vm3j4wzo

— 🌊🇺🇸Alan Smithee🌊🇺🇸☮️ (@AlanSmitheeDGA) January 30, 2024

The accusations

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed on Monday, Luttig argues that Trump's actions amounted to an armed insurrection against the Constitution, specifically targeting the peaceful transfer of executive power. This, according to Luttig, disqualifies Trump under Section 3 of the Constitution.

“Mr. Trump tried to prevent the newly-elected President Biden from governing anywhere in the United States. The South Carolina secession prevented the newly-elected President Lincoln from governing only in that State,” Luttig wrote.

“Trump incited, and therefore engaged in, an armed insurrection against the Constitution’s express and foundational mandates that require the peaceful transfer of executive power to a newly-elected President,” the brief said. “In doing so, Mr. Trump disqualified himself under Section 3 (of the Constitution).”

A prominent conservative figure, Luttig has consistently asserted that Trump engaged in an insurrection following his 2020 election loss and should be prohibited from holding office.

During the certification of the 2020 presidential election, he played a crucial role in providing legal support for then-Vice President Mike Pence to resist Trump's attempts to overturn the results.

The Supreme Court case

The US Supreme Court recently agreed to review a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that removed Trump from the state's 2024 ballot.

The Colorado court, in a 4-3 ruling, argued that Trump is constitutionally ineligible to run in 2024 due to the 14th Amendment's prohibition on insurrectionists holding office, citing his conduct on January 6, 2021.

Scheduled for oral arguments on February 8, the case has garnered attention. The brief filed on Monday, representing several notable lawyers, including conservative attorney George Conway, urges the court to adopt a textualist approach, focusing on the specific language of the disputed constitutional provision.

The ballot battle rages

The brief counters Trump's argument that the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist ban should only be enforced by Congress after a candidate is elected.

Luttig and others argue that the enforcement of the provision falls within the purview of the courts.

They assert that Trump's stance would hinder voters from making informed decisions and create chaos as courts determine whether a newly inaugurated president is disqualified while needing to fulfill crucial presidential duties.

The arguments underscore the gravity of Trump's actions, positioning them as a broader threat to the constitutional order.