Thread by @julie_kelly2

Here we go: Jonathan Mitchell, Trump's attorney, opens by stating Trump is not an "officer" of US. Term applies to appointed not elected officials.

"A state cannot exclude any candidate from the ballot under Sec 3 of 14th Amendment."

Debate between justices and Mitchell centers on whether states have a right to enforce Sec 3 14th Amendment. Trump's attorney seems to suggest enabling legislation is needed.

Alito: "Who can enforce Sec 3 with respect to a presidential candidate? Consequences would be severe."

Also at issue is if implementation of Sec 3 14A by a state adds another qualification to run for president not currently in the Constitution.

Sotomayor and Mitchell going back and forth on this, for example, whether a candidate is 34 when running for president but will be 35 when taking office.

"Section 3 bans him from holding office," Mitchell

Argument now moves to whether a president is an "officer," something Ketanji Brown Jackson tried to bring up earlier but was asked to delay her questioning. KBJ, Kagan, and Gorsuch parsing out the definition

Alito asks if any state has ever disqualified a presidential candidate under Sec 3. Answer is of course no.

Now discussion related to criminal prosecution under insurrection statute--2383--which Mitchell admits is a possibility (although he raised immunity question)

From their brief:

KBJ back to asking about whether president falls under the category of "officer."

She also is first one to raise issue of Jan 6 as an insurrection. Mitchell called it a riot but not an insurrection.

CO voters atty Jason Murray up next. Says Trump incited an insurrection and is disqualified.

Justice Thomas and Chief Roberts going hard on Murray off the bat, disputes that states have power to enforce 14A and discusses historical context and execution of Sec 3. Roberts calls the matter "ahistorical."

Kav: "Who decides if someone engaged in an insurrection?"

Murray argues Sec 3 is as prevailing as age, birthplace, residency of presidential candidate.

Kagan raises national consequences of a state (not Congress) imposing such a qualification. Calls it "extraordinary" for a state to singularly execute a Constitutional provision outside presidential qualifications.

ACB - "doesn't seem like a state call."

Not going well for CO side.

ACB again raises due process rights of Trump, limited evidence presented in CO "trial"

John Roberts essentially raises concerns over slippery slope effect - "it will come down to a handful of states that will decide the election."

Roberts interrupts Murray who responded that "frivolous" attempts might happen. "Insurrection is a broad term."

Murray: "WE HAVEN"T SEEN ANYTHING LIKE JAN 6"

Murray also notes that Sec has been dormant for 155 years - not sure that helps.

Pretty clear where Roberts stands.

Oof Gorsuch scolding Murray a few times. "Don't say it again. Try to answer the question."

Murray: The only way to remove a president from office is impeachment.

KBJ also asks about individual states determining the eligibility of presidential candidate outside qualifications clause.

Generally, it appears the court recognizes the shoddy process that resulted in the CO decision. Murray basically says, go look at the record of Jan. 6.

Alito: "Which record?"

Murray raises Trump's twitter posts, keeps calling it "indisputable."

More debate on the impact of one state impacting the outcome of a national election.

Kagan: "What's a state doing...deciding who other voters can elect as president?"

Gorsuch back to "officer" debate.

Murray again not helping himself. "President Trump had a 5 day trial." LOL

Keep in mind who testified at this "trial": Eric Swalwell and DC Metro cop Daniel Hodges, caught misrepresenting his experiences on Jan 6 during at least one trial.

Kav notes that Trump has not been charged with 2382, the insurrection statute,

"If the concern you have--that insurrectionists should not hold office--there is a tool to make sure that happens," which is criminal prosecution.

Kav says Murray position could "disenfranchise" voters to a great degree. Murray says Sec 3 is intended to protect the "constitutional democracy."

"President Trump tried to disenfranchise 80 million voters."

KBJ again returns to definition of "officer" and pushes Murray to explain how Sec 3 scoops in president.

"Your point is there is no ambiguity?"

She also raises history of Sec 3, that was to prevent the south from rising again.

Now up: Shannon Stevenson, CO solicitor general

Stevenson represents CO Sec of State.

I lowkey love that Thomas is the first to ask questions of all participants. This is driving the Left NUTS.

Thomas wants Stevenson to explain how Sec 3 represents a qualification for president. She says its disqualifying.

She is pushed to defend a state removing a presidential candidate based on however state officials interpret sections of the Constitution. Stevenson insists Sec 3 is as much a qualification for president as age and birthplace.

Most justices concerned that other states will follow suit.

"Have faith in our system," LOL. She says "institutions" will make sure states don't overreach.

Alito asks which institutions. Word salad response.

Mitchell (Trump lawyer) back up for rebuttal: "Colorado has changed the criteria in Sec 3 that [applies it] before the candidate holds office."

Hearing over.