Politics
Five ways the Supreme Court could rule for Trump on the 14th Amendment
Now that the Supreme Court has heard arguments in the case of President Trump and the 14th Amendment, it seems clear which side will win. The big question is what route the justices will take to allow him onto the ballot.
In the course of more than two hours of oral arguments Thursday, eight justices advanced at least five paths they might take to rule in Trump’s favor.
Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed to seriously entertain the idea of ruling against him.
Here’s a look at where the court may end up.
What’s at issue
In December, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot because of the 14th Amendment, which was adopted after the Civil War. The amendment’s Section 3 reads:
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
The amendment was designed to keep former Confederates from regaining power in the U.S. government, but it still has effect and covers Trump, the Colorado court ruled.
The decision had four key elements:
- As president, Trump had “taken an oath … as an officer of the United States” and is therefore covered by the amendment’s language.
- Based on a five-day hearing in a Colorado trial court, the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, was an “insurrection.”
- Trump “engaged” in that insurrection through his words and deeds.
- Under the terms of the amendment, he is ineligible to “hold any office … under the United States,” including the presidency.
The U.S. Supreme Court justices seemed skeptical of all four elements.
Who gets to decide?
The argument that appeared to attract the most support among the justices questioned the state’s power to decide the case at all.
“Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination, not only for their own citizens but for the rest of the nation?” Justice Elena Kagan asked Jason Murray, the lawyer representing the voters who challenged Trump’s eligibility. “That seems quite extraordinary, doesn’t it?”
Murray insisted that Colorado was deciding only for its citizens and its ballots. What the state did was no different from what others have done in excluding candidates who were too young to hold office or weren’t born in the United States, he said.
Kagan was clearly skeptical. A ruling upholding Colorado’s decision would have nationwide impact, she said.
“There are certain national questions where states are not the repository of authority,” she said. “What’s a state doing deciding who other citizens get to vote for for president?”
The 14th Amendment was “designed to take away powers from the states” after the Civil War, she said later, when Shannon Stevenson, the lawyer for Colorado, defended the ruling. It would be odd for it to be interpreted to allow every state to go its own way, Kagan said.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, like Kagan, among the three Democratic appointees on the court, similarly questioned the authority of states to make their own decisions on eligibility.
Why would the writers of the 14th Amendment “design a system” that would allow “different states suddenly to say, ‘You’re eligible, you’re not?’” she asked.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that allowing a state-by-state approach inevitably would invite a court in a conservative state to rule that President Biden was ineligible.
“Surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side,” he said. “I would expect … a goodly number of states will say, whoever the Democratic candidate is, ‘You’re off the ballot.’”
Must Congress pass a law?
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh pointed to a decision from 1869, the year after the 14th Amendment was ratified. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase ruled that the disqualification of insurrectionists could not be used unless Congress passed specific legislation to implement it.
Chase issued that ruling, in what is known as Griffin’s case, in his role as an appeals court judge “riding the circuit,” as justices did in the 19th century. So it isn’t a binding Supreme Court precedent. But, as Kavanaugh noted, it is a guide to what at least some figures at the time believed the 14th Amendment to mean. The fact that Congress the following year passed a law to set up the sort of process Chase called for is further evidence, he said.
That 1870 law was repealed long ago, and there’s almost no chance the current, gridlocked Congress would pass implementing legislation now. So a ruling on those grounds would effectively end the case.
One risk would remain for Trump: There is still a law against insurrection on the books, and it provides that a person who is convicted is barred from office. But Trump has not been charged under that law.
A Trump exception?
For Trump’s lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell, a ruling on those grounds would be a partial victory, but the former president might risk future challenges.
The issue of whether Trump was qualified “could come back with a vengeance” after the election, warned Murray, the lawyer challenging him.
“Ultimately, members of Congress may have to make the determination after a presidential election, if President Trump wins, about whether or not he’s disqualified from office and whether to count votes cast for him,” Murray said.
To end the case once and for all, Mitchell urged the court to rule that Trump was never an “officer of the United States” and therefore is exempt from the 14th Amendment’s ban.
Mitchell insisted that those words have a specific, technical meaning in the Constitution: “‘Officer of the United States’ refers only to appointed officials,” not to elected officials like the president, he told the justices.
Some prominent legal scholars have scoffed at that, saying the Constitution should be read as a normal person would read it, not as a “secret code,” as one recent law review article put it.
Mitchell’s argument also ran into objections from some justices.
As Sotomayor noted, the argument feels like “a bit of a gerrymandered rule” because it would benefit only Trump: Alone among presidents, he was never an appointed federal official, a member of Congress or a state official before his election.
“It does seem odd that President Trump falls through the cracks, in a way,” Mitchell conceded. But, he insisted, that’s what the language of the amendment requires.
Is the presidency covered?
Jackson raised a related question: Is the presidency one of the offices the amendment bars an insurrectionist from holding?
The opening words of Section 3 list the specific offices from which an insurrectionist would be barred, she noted. It includes senator, representative and member of the electoral college but never mentions the president. Perhaps that was deliberate, because the writers of the 14th Amendment were mostly focused on preventing “the South from rising again” by keeping former Confederates out of Congress and state offices, she said.
At minimum, the language has “ambiguity,” she said. The court could interpret that ambiguous language to allow voters to make their own decisions.
Is it too early?
Mitchell pressed one other argument that appeared to interest some justices: The amendment says insurrectionists cannot “hold any office” but doesn’t say they can’t run for one.
That’s important, because Congress could vote before Inauguration Day to lift the disqualification. By barring Trump from the ballot, Colorado would, in effect, preempt his right to ask Congress for amnesty, he said.
When the justices convene Friday to discuss the case behind closed doors, they’ll see whether they can consolidate behind one of those arguments. They’re under pressure to act quickly, because the presidential campaign is well underway. If they can produce a unanimous ruling, it might lower the partisan temperature of an inflamed election year.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Former President Joe Biden appeared to briefly seek directions before exiting the stage after delivering remarks at a Democratic gala Saturday night, capping his speech with an awkward onstage moment.
After delivering a roughly 10-minute keynote speech at the Maryland Democratic Party’s “Fight Back & Win Gala” near Baltimore, the 83-year-old paused onstage and looked toward the wings before pointing in two different directions, seemingly trying to determine where to exit. After receiving guidance, Biden turned and walked off the stage with his back to the audience.
Unlike several other speakers at the gala, who exited on the opposite side of the stage after their remarks, Biden left in a different direction.
EX-DEM INSIDER REVEALS SHE WILL EXPOSE DEMOCRATS WHO COVERED UP BIDEN’S COGNITIVE DECLINE IN NEW BOOK
Former President Joe Biden exits the stage after delivering remarks at the Maryland Democratic Party’s Fight Back and Win Gala near Baltimore on Saturday. (CSPAN)
The moment came after Biden delivered one of his sharpest public critiques of President Donald Trump since leaving office. During his remarks, Biden defended his own administration’s record while accusing the Trump administration of corruption. He also took aim at what he described as Trump’s “vanity projects,” including renovations to the White House, changes at the Kennedy Center and the ongoing saga with the reflecting pool on the National Mall.
“Whoa, what a loser,” Biden said.
After pausing several times to cough throughout his remarks, Biden concluded with a call for Democrats to “fight back,” saying the country could overcome its challenges by acting together.
“Folks, I guarantee we can do this. And we will. We just remember who in the hell we are. We’re the United States of America,” Biden said. “There’s nothing, nothing beyond our capacity if we act together. So let’s get up and fight back, God darn it.”
The latest onstage moment comes just days after another widely shared incident at the opening of the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago.
WATCH: BIDEN LEFT SEARCHING FOR FAMILY AFTER OBAMA PRESIDENTIAL CENTER CEREMONY
The star-studded ceremony brought together former Presidents Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, along with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Vice President Kamala Harris and other political leaders and entertainers. At the conclusion of the event, Biden remained onstage after others had exited before calling out, “Where’s my granddaughter?”
Former First Lady Jill Biden then returned to the stage, took his hand and guided him off.
SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER
Former U.S. President Joe Biden and Former first lady Jill Biden appear on stage during the dedication ceremony for the opening of the Barack Obama Presidential Center in John Lewis Plaza on June 18, 2026 in Chicago, Illinois. (Scott Olson / Getty Images)
Biden has largely stayed out of the public eye since withdrawing from the 2024 presidential race after facing intense pressure from fellow Democrats to end his reelection bid.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The former president has since made only occasional public appearances and recently disclosed that he is undergoing treatment for Stage 4 prostate cancer.
WASHINGTON — A spectacular economic upturn is on its way, President Trump promised Americans last week, galvanized in part by a deal brokered this month to end his war with Iran.
“Very soon you’ll be at $2.50 a gallon for gasoline,” Trump told a crowd Wednesday night on the National Mall. The next year, he said, “is set for an economic boom the likes of which no nation has ever seen before.”
Economists are skeptical. The effects of the war and other factors driving inflation are likely to stick around for months, experts say, presenting an ongoing challenge to American households — and to Trump’s party as it seeks to retain control of Congress in November’s midterm elections.
Yesenia De La Torre, 24, from Culver City pumps gas at the Chevron gas station on Sawtelle Boulevard and Culver Boulevard on June 15. Despite an agreement announced Sunday to end the Iran war and open the Strait of Hormuz, high oil, gasoline prices and energy supply problems won’t be solved overnight.
(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)
The war’s end will not create “a complete snap-back,” said Patrick Harker, professor at the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School and former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
“Markets are still cautious, and the infrastructure that’s been destroyed [in the Middle East] is going to take a while to re-create,” Harker said. “Inflation’s going to stay elevated for a while.”
Oil prices were dropping last week — falling to their prewar level Friday — and average gas prices fell by 7 cents per gallon over a week ago. But it will take significant time for oil shipping to ramp up through the Strait of Hormuz, infrastructure to be rebuilt and gas prices to drop, said Michael Negron, senior fellow for economic opportunity at the Center for American Progress.
“I would expect there to be a continued inching downward,” Negron said, but “we’re not going to just go back within weeks to $2.90 per gallon.”
That means the prices of gas and of other essentials aren’t likely to improve dramatically before the midterms, in which affordability has become a driving issue. It could heighten challenges for Republicans, who are defending their majorities in the U.S. House and Senate, as Democrats seek to leverage the issue to gain ground.
Positive messaging about the economy from Trump and other officials “doesn’t really resonate” with Americans who are struggling to make ends meet, said Gina Plata-Nino of the Food Research and Action Center, a national anti-hunger advocacy organization.
“When you’re still making the same amount of money but there’s less for you to be able to pay [for] your basic needs — gas is more expensive, food is more expensive — it doesn’t really add up,” she said.
A fruit stand on West 7th Street sells bananas for $2 per bunch.
(Carlin Stiehl / For The Times)
Americans question the costs
The Iran war has cost the average American household between $775 and $1,300 so far in fuel and taxpayer costs, according to an analysis by Roger Pielke, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
The national average gas price sat at $3.90 on Friday, according to AAA, and California’s average was $5.48 per gallon, down 13 cents from a week earlier.
The increase in oil prices has also affected diesel and fertilizer prices, creating a ripple effect through several sectors, including agriculture. Consumer prices rose 4.1% in May from a year earlier, putting the inflation gauge at a three-year high.
Trump has leaned on a bullish message about the economy, but he has largely dismissed Americans’ worries about affordability, calling it a “fake word” and a “hoax.” Last week, he undermined the first major progress by Congress on the issue, refusing to sign a bipartisan housing affordability bill after both chambers passed it.
President Donald Trump closes his eyes as Dr. Ben Carson, left, speaks during an event with the White House Religious Liberty Commission in the Oval Office on Friday.
(Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)
Meanwhile, the president’s approval rating on the economy dropped to 33% last week in an NPR/PBS News/Marist Poll — his lowest ever for that poll and 3 points below former President Biden’s worst reading on the question during his term.
Nearly four-fifths of respondents said that gas prices present some sort of strain, with 34% categorizing it as a major strain and 44% calling it a minor strain. Half of respondents who said they were not vacationing this summer said cost was the reason.
And only 23% of Americans say the war was worth the costs, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted days after the Trump administration announced the framework agreement to end the conflict earlier this month.
“People [are] just feeling like they’re getting left behind,” Harker said. “That’s a very real, palpable feeling when you go out and talk to people. They’re worried.”
The president and his party need a midterms message that “real economic change” is coming, said Brian Reisinger, a rural policy analyst in Wisconsin and a former GOP strategist.
“It has to be substance behind the sell,” Reisinger said.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) speaks to reporters after the weekly Senate policy luncheons at the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday in Washington, D.C. Thune spoke on a meeting with President Trump on the Iran deal.
(Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images)
U.S.-Iran talks on shaky ground
Trump’s boosters have hailed the Iran deal as a victory for the president. And Trump has justified the shock to gas prices as “worth it not to have a nuclear weapon” in Iran, though the war has not achieved the president’s stated aims, which included the elimination of its nuclear program.
“President Trump was clear all along that there would be short-term, temporary disruptions to energy markets, and that oil and gas prices will quickly fall as soon as the Iran situation is resolved,” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said Friday.
How rapidly the conflict will be resolved is not yet clear. The U.S.-Iran negotiations were on shaky ground by week’s end, with each country offering diametrically opposed messaging on the status of key points of negotiation.
Analysts say much of the increase in traffic through the strait has been driven by the return of Iranian oil to global markets. Trump agreed in the controversial deal with Iran to lift sanctions on Iranian oil, allowing Tehran to resume trading its most valuable export and breaking with decades of U.S. policy.
The unpredictability of the talks is another factor keeping energy companies, shippers and insurers cautious for now, Negron said.
“Everything is to be negotiated in the next nearly two months,” he said. “It is natural to expect there to be additional risk priced into each barrel of oil, into the insurance people are paying, just because of the volatility and uncertainty of where we are.”
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
He wasn’t on the ballot, but President Donald Trump was a winner in Louisiana’s GOP Senate runoff election.
That’s because Trump-backed Rep. Julia Letlow defeated state Treasurer John Fleming to capture the Republican nomination, The Associated Press reported on Saturday.
Six weeks after denying Trump-targeted GOP Sen. Bill Cassidy a third six-year term in the Senate, a majority of Republican voters in the solidly red Gulf Coast state backed Letlow. Her victory in the runoff is seen as another victory for Trump as he works to fill the halls of Congress with loyal lawmakers for his final two years in the White House. And it’s another sign of the power of a Trump endorsement in Republican primaries.
Five years after he voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial, Cassidy was sent packing.
WATCH: CASSIDY DETAILS NEW BEHIND CLOSED DOORS CLASH WITH TRUMP
Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana fist bumps a supporter during a campaign stop at a gun retailer and firing range in Baton Rouge on May 15, 2026, the eve of the state’s Senate primary. (Paul Steinhauser/Fox News)
Trump reacted to Letlow’s victory in a Truth Social post, calling Saturday’s result “great news.”
“Julia Letlow WON in Louisiana, beating conclusively a very strong and smart opponent,” Trump wrote. “Congratulations to Julia. She will be a truly GREAT Senator!”
Letlow, who was backed by Trump even before she entered the race in January, finished first in the primary, double digits ahead of Fleming, with Cassidy in third place. Since no candidate cracked 50% of the vote, Letlow and Fleming advanced to the runoff for the Republican nomination and Cassidy became the first elected Republican senator to lose renomination since Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana in 2012.
Trump, celebrating Cassidy’s defeat, said on social media that “it’s nice to see that his political career is OVER!”
Cassidy, in a speech to supporters after conceding, took a jab at Trump, saying, “When you participate in democracy, sometimes it doesn’t turn out the way you want it to. But you don’t pout, you don’t whine. You don’t claim the election was stolen… You don’t manufacture some excuse.”
President Donald Trump stands with Rep. Julia Letlow during the Congressional Ball at the White House Grand Foyer in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 11, 2025. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Letlow, who was backed by Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, a top Trump ally, won her congressional seat in 2021, after her husband, Luke Letlow, died five days before being sworn into the U.S. House after his 2020 election victory for the seat she now holds. She highlighted her support from Trump throughout her Senate campaign.
Fleming, who spent eight years in Congress before serving as a White House deputy chief of staff during Trump’s first term, argued he was the most conservative candidate in the GOP Senate primary.
DEMOCRACY ’26: STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE FOX NEWS ELECTION HUB
Letlow will be considered the clear frontrunner in the midterm election against either farmer Jamie Davis or Navy veteran Gary Crockett, who are facing off in the Democratic Party runoff.
The brute force of the president’s endorsement power has been on display in GOP primaries over the past two months, with his candidates ousting incumbents he targeted in showdowns in Indiana, Kentucky and Texas, as well as the Louisiana primary.
But Trump’s endorsement streak in statewide and congressional Republican primaries was snapped three weeks ago when his last-minute endorsement of Republican Rep. Randy Feenstra of Iowa in the race to succeed retiring GOP Gov. Kim Reynolds wasn’t enough to propel the three-term congressman to victory.
Feenstra was narrowly edged by Zach Lahn, a businessman, farmer and former political strategist who was backed by the political wings of MAHA — the acronym for the Make America Healthy Again movement aligned with Trump’s Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — and Turning Point USA, the powerful conservative organization co-founded by the late Charlie Kirk.
Zach Lahn raises his fist in celebration after defeating his primary opponent in Iowa’s GOP gubernatorial race on Tuesday, June 2, 2026. (Zach Lahn for Governor via Facebook)
The president rebounded three weeks ago in South Carolina, as Trump-backed Lt. Gov. Pam Evette finished first in the GOP gubernatorial primary and longtime Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham won a majority of the vote in the Republican Senate primary, and avoided a runoff.
Graham, who was endorsed by Trump, was facing primary challenges from five candidates, including conservative businessman Mark Lynch, who took aim at the senator over his support for the war in Iran. Lynch was backed by some MAGA leaders who have been critical of the president.
Two weeks ago, Trump-backed candidates won two of the three top races in Georgia and Alabama, with the one setback coming against a billionaire businessman who shelled out over $100 million of his own money to boost his campaign.
Rep. Barry Moore, a House Freedom Caucus member and longtime Trump supporter who was endorsed by the president, comfortably defeated rival Jared Hudson, a former Navy SEAL sniper who was supported by some top names on the right, in solidly red Alabama’s GOP Senate runoff.
In battleground Georgia’s Republican Senate runoff, an 11th-hour endorsement by Trump helped boost Rep. Mike Collins, a MAGA champion, to victory over former college football coach Derek Dooley, who was backed by popular conservative Gov. Brian Kemp.
TRUMP’S ENDORSEMENT FAILS TO SAVE MAGA CANDIDATE AS BILLIONAIRE ADVANCES IN KEY GOVERNOR RACE
Collins will face Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff in the general election in a race that’s among a handful that will likely decide if the GOP holds its slim majority in the chamber in the midterms.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
But in Georgia’s GOP gubernatorial runoff, the candidate Trump backed, Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, who was also endorsed by Kemp this past weekend, was defeated by billionaire businessman Rick Jackson, who ran as an outsider.
On Tuesday, Trump-backed first-time candidate Anthony Constantino, a businessman and former boxer, defeated Robert Smullen, a retired Marine Corps colonel and New York Assembly member who had the backing of the state party, in the upstate New York race to succeed retiring GOP Rep. Elise Stefanik.
Meanwhile, in South Carolina’s Republican gubernatorial runoff, Trump couldn’t lose.
That’s because, besides backing Evette, he also gave a last-minute endorsement to state Attorney General Alan Wilson, who ended up winning the showdown in a landslide.
-
Mississippi3 minutes agoCould Texas Be Facing Another Trap Game vs. Mississippi State in 2026?
-
Missouri6 minutes agoUPDATE: Well-known mid-Missouri attorney charged after sting expected to request home detention | 93.9 The Eagle
-
Montana11 minutes agoMontana nurse and Guard member earns national Air Force recognition
-
Nebraska18 minutes agoFormer OSU, Nebraska wrestler AJ Ferrari arrested after police pursuit in Nebraska
-
Nevada21 minutes agoOfficials elevate response efforts to combat eastern Nevada wildfires
-
New Hampshire26 minutes agoU.S. Forest Service Reorg Talk | Films | Stories In A Park: Week Ahead Events On Concord Patch
-
New Jersey33 minutes agoMissing New Jersey teens found safe after vanishing from train station | Fox News Video
-
New Mexico36 minutes agoNew Mexico wrestling standouts give back at Raton High School camp
