We are off to a flying start on a momentous year. The Supreme Court will have to decide whether Donald Trump is disqualified from running for president because of the application of Section Three of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

A few months ago, only the most seasoned constitutional lawyers were aware that such a provision even existed. Most who looked at it were quick to dismiss its application, saying that the entire issue was a nonstarter.

Some argued it is a political question, not one to be decided by the courts, ignoring that the decisions of the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution often have political consequence.

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, in her cogent 34-page opinion disqualifying Trump from the ballot in that state, argued that never before has a Secretary of State used Section 3 to disqualify a presidential candidate, but observed that never before has a president engaged in an insurrection to keep himself in power and thwart the will of the voters.

The flap all started with an influential August 2023 law review article coauthored by conservative constitutional scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, which analyzed every bit of the history, structure, text and original understanding of Section 3 — and concluded that Trump was disqualified.

Authoritative constitutional law scholars — such as Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School, retired conservative Federal Judge J. Michael Luttig and Professor Gerard M. Magliocca of the Indiana University School of Law — were quick to add their support.

Then came the decision of the........

© The Hill