On Tuesday, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump is barred from reclaiming the presidency under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits people who “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding political office. That argument has gained traction in some legal circles in recent months thanks in part to the work of J. Michael Luttig, a prominent conservative legal scholar and former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, who, together with the liberal law professor Laurence Tribe, promoted the idea that the 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump from seeking a second term.
This isn’t the first time Luttig has played a central role in arguments about Trump’s eligibility for office. After the Jan. 6 riots at the Capitol, Luttig published an op-ed in The Washington Post arguing that the Constitution prohibits Congress from impeaching a president once he or she has left office. Luttig’s op-ed found an eager audience on Capitol Hill, where several Republicans cited his legal argument as a reason for opposing Trump’s impeachment.
I spoke with Judge Luttig by phone to discuss whether he regrets the way Republicans used his arguments in Trump’s second impeachment (he says he’s “agnostic” about it) and whether he believes the Supreme Court will affirm the Colorado court’s decision: “I believe [it] should — and I believe it will.”
The following has been edited for clarity and concision.
When did you become convinced of the argument that Trump is disqualified from office by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment?
Professor Laurence Tribe, who is the preeminent constitutional scholar in the nation, and I have been thinking about the 14th Amendment disqualification clause together for three years — essentially since January 6, 2021. Professor Tribe has been studying and writing about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for his entire career as a constitutional law professor.
Did you consider mentioning that argument in your 2021 Washington Post op-ed? It strikes me that if Trump was disqualified on 14th Amendment grounds, it was sort of beside the point whether the Senate was constitutionally empowered to convict him, right?
No, that’s not actually correct for technical reasons that I’ll only go into if you want me to.
Yeah, let’s get into those. Can you explain?
Well, you’re interpreting two different clauses of the Constitution of the United States. The........