Donald Trump’s candidacy is once again coming up against the courts. If the polls already predict an almost assured victory in the Republican primaries, it is in the judicial arena that this seems more and more compromised. Overview in five questions.
What are the immediate effects?
The Colorado Supreme Court disqualified Donald Trump on Tuesday evening, preventing his name from appearing on the ballots that the state will distribute to the electorate during the Republican primaries on March 5.
The path back to the White House does not, however, close to the former American president. “The decision only applies to Colorado,” explains Valérie Beaudoin, associate researcher at the United States Observatory of the Raoul-Dandurand Chair. It’s not everywhere that Donald Trump won’t be able to run. »
The Colorado Supreme Court, however, sets a precedent that could galvanize legal challenges across the country. Already, around twenty similar actions are occupying the courts elsewhere in the United States. The Colorado judgment could thus spread – provided that the Federal Supreme Court does not invalidate the decision.
What legal basis to disqualify Donald Trump?
Colorado Supreme Court invokes third section of 14e amendment of the American Constitution to disqualify the seditious candidate. It provides that an “officer of the executive” who has fomented rebellion against the government cannot run for elected office.
Several jurists believe that the presidency falls outside the scope of this amendment: this was also the opinion of the Colorado Court of Appeal, which found Donald Trump guilty of inciting the riot, without however make him ineligible. The Supreme Court of the same state, however, decided otherwise by overturning this judgment.
The Trump camp will undoubtedly challenge his disqualification all the way to the top of the American judiciary. “Does the term “officer of the executive branch” include or not include the President of the United States? This is the question that the nine judges of the Supreme Court will have to decide, explains Charles-Philippe David, president of the United States Observatory and founder of the Raoul-Dandurand Chair. No one can predict their decision because there is no case law on the issue. »
The end for candidate Donald Trump?
Far from it: for the moment, this new tile, which would defeat any other political figure, rather benefits the former tenant of the White House. “It’s clear that the winner is Donald Trump,” analyzes Valérie Beaudoin. The decision feeds the narrative that he is the victim of legal persecution and has little electoral impact, since the state of Colorado would likely not vote for Trump anyway. His campaign is already trying to exploit the decision to solicit money to finance this ixth legal battle. »
In the longer term, the political future of the ex-president nevertheless finds itself in the hands of the nine highest magistrates in the country. “If the Federal Supreme Court agrees with the Colorado Supreme Court, it is a game changer, underlines Charles-Philippe David. If he’s eligible, we’re back to the same situation we were in the day before yesterday, but if he’s ineligible and the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision stands, that’s probably going to cause him to disappear from the ballot in about 20 years. of states. »
Even disqualified in half the country, Donald Trump would still have the leisure, adds Charles-Philippe David, to avoid the race for the Republican nomination and run for the presidency as an independent. “I have never ruled out the possibility that he could found his party and pay his own expenses. However, it would divide the Republican vote, and that would certainly help Joe Biden. »
A dangerous precedent?
Some worry about judges inheriting the power to determine who is eligible to run for office. “The scope of the third article is broad,” explains Valérie Beaudoin. It not only punishes participation in or incitement to rebellion, but also “aiding the enemy”. This latter notion is vague and, in the eyes of many, it opens the door wide to the possibility of using the courts to prosecute political adversaries. »
Others believe that the judiciary ultimately plays its role as the guardian of American democracy. “It is about time that the Supreme Court and justice in general decide questions that, obviously, politicians have not wanted to face,” concludes Charles-Phillipe David. I am thinking of the two impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump which aborted in the United States Congress. The elected officials could have made him ineligible by simple majority by invoking the 14e amendment. They did not do it. »
The following ?
The American presidential election will take place on November 5 and Donald Trump is face to face with Joe Biden in voting intentions. “It’s 50-50: it can go one way or the other,” analyzes Charles-Philippe David.
The road for the lord of Mar-a-Lago, however, turns out to be bumpy: he faces a total of 91 counts in four different trials. The American Supreme Court, once again, must rule on the immunity of candidate Trump during the race for the White House.
“The only variable I am absolutely certain of next year is that there will be surprises. We are in a lot of firsts never before seen in the history of the United States, ”adds Mr. David.
