Old page wikitext, before the edit (old_wikitext) | '{{Short description|2023–24 U.S. legal and political dispute}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=March 2024}}
[[File:Trump 2024 state ballot eligibility map.svg|thumb|upright=1.2|Eligibility of Donald Trump on GOP primary ballots by state prior to ''[[Trump v. Anderson]]'':
{{legend|#00bb00|Case dismissed by state supreme court}}
{{legend|#90EE90|Case dismissed by lower court}}
{{legend|#cc9933|Decision ruled that Trump is ineligible; stayed, reversed by United States Supreme Court}}
{{legend|#666666|Lawsuit filed}}]]
{{Donald Trump series}}
{{January 6 United States Capitol attack sidebar}}
[[Donald Trump]]'s eligibility to run in the [[2024 United States presidential election|2024 U.S. presidential election]] was the subject of dispute due to his involvement in the [[January 6 United States Capitol attack]], through the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]]'s "insurrection clause", which disqualifies [[insurrection|insurrectionists]] against the United States from holding office if they have previously taken an oath to support the constitution. Courts or officials in three states—[[Colorado]], [[Maine]], and [[Illinois]]—ruled that Trump was barred from presidential ballots. However, the Supreme Court in ''[[Trump v. Anderson]]'' (2024) reversed the ruling in Colorado on the basis that states could not enforce the insurrection clause against federal elected officials.<ref>{{ussc|name=Trump v. Anderson|volume=601|docket=23-719|year=2024}}</ref>
In December 2023, the [[Colorado Supreme Court]] in ''[[Trump v. Anderson|Anderson v. Griswold]]'' ruled that Trump had engaged in insurrection and was ineligible to hold the office of President, and ordered that he be removed from the [[2024 Colorado Republican presidential primary|state's primary election]] ballots as a result.<ref>{{cite web|last=Riccardi|first=Nicholas|url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-2b9d5b628cb2779fc84212cdc651e4e7|title=Here’s how 2 sentences in the Constitution rose from obscurity to ensnare Donald Trump|work=[[Associated Press]]|date=February 5, 2024}}</ref> Later that same month, [[Secretary of State of Maine|Maine Secretary of State]] [[Shenna Bellows]] also ruled that Trump engaged in insurrection and was therefore ineligible to be on the [[2024 Maine Republican presidential primary|state's primary election]] ballot. An Illinois judge ruled Trump was ineligible for ballot access in the state in February 2024.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/illinois-judge-rules-trump-removed-republican-primary-ballot-jan-6-rio-rcna141065|title=Illinois judge rules Trump ineligible for Republican primary ballot over Jan. 6 riot|work=[[NBC News]]|date=February 28, 2024}}</ref> All three states had their decisions unanimously reversed by the United States Supreme Court.<ref name = "politicoMarch4">{{cite news|date=March 4, 2024|title=States can’t kick Trump off ballot, Supreme Court says |publisher=Politico|url=https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/04/states-cant-remove-trump-from-ballot-supreme-court-says-00144673|access-date=March 4, 2024}}</ref> Previously, the [[Minnesota Supreme Court]] and the [[Michigan Court of Appeals]] both ruled that presidential eligibility cannot be applied by their [[State court (United States)|state courts]] to [[primary election]]s, but did not rule on the issues for a general election. By January 2024, formal challenges to Trump's eligibility had been filed in at least 34 states.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Bogel-Burroughs|first1=Nicholas|last2=Smith|first2=Mitch|date=January 3, 2024|title=What to Know About the Efforts to Remove Trump From the 2024 Ballot|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/article/trump-ballot-remove-2024.html|access-date=January 4, 2024|archive-date=January 4, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240104012812/https://www.nytimes.com/article/trump-ballot-remove-2024.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Gamio|first1=Lazaro|last2=Smith|first2=Mitch|date=January 4, 2024|title=Tracking Efforts to Remove Trump From the 2024 Ballot|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/02/us/politics/trump-ballot-removal-map.html|access-date=January 4, 2024|archive-date=January 3, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240103232038/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/02/us/politics/trump-ballot-removal-map.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
On January 5, 2024, the Supreme Court granted a [[writ]] of ''[[certiorari]]'' for Trump's appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court ruling in ''Anderson v. Griswold''<ref>{{cite news|last1=Hurley|first1=Lawrence|date=January 5, 2024|title=Supreme Court agrees to weigh whether Trump can be kicked off ballot in Colorado|publisher=NBC News|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-agrees-weigh-whether-trump-can-kicked-ballot-colorado-rcna132058|access-date=January 5, 2024|archive-date=January 5, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240105220842/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-agrees-weigh-whether-trump-can-kicked-ballot-colorado-rcna132058|url-status=live}}</ref> and heard oral arguments on February 8.<ref name=reutersfeb8>{{Cite web |last1=Chung |first1=Andrew |last2=Kruzel|first2=John|date=February 8, 2024 |title=US Supreme Court justices grill Trump lawyer over ballot disqualification |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-brings-fight-stay-ballot-us-supreme-court-2024-02-08/ |access-date=March 4, 2024 |website=Reuters |language=en}}</ref> On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a ruling unanimously reversing the Colorado Supreme Court decision, ruling that states had no authority to remove Trump from their ballots.<ref>{{cite news|last=Sherman|first=Mark|date=March 4, 2024|title=Supreme Court restores Trump to ballot, rejecting state attempts to ban him over Capitol attack|publisher=Associated Press|url=https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-insurrection-election-colorado-51e79c0f03013034c8a042cb278b6446|access-date=March 4, 2024}}</ref>
Several commentators have also argued for disqualification because of [[Democratic backsliding in the United States|democratic backsliding]], as well as the [[paradox of tolerance]], arguing that voters should not be able to elect Donald Trump, whom they see as a threat to the republic.<ref name="Threat"/> Other commentators argue that removing Trump from the ballot constitutes democratic backsliding.<ref>{{Cite web |date=December 20, 2023 |title=The Folly of Colorado's Trump Disqualification |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/colorado-supreme-court-donald-trump-ballot-2024-fourteenth-amendment-083b1271 |access-date=January 9, 2024 |website=The Wall Street Journal |archive-date=January 9, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240109075234/https://www.wsj.com/articles/colorado-supreme-court-donald-trump-ballot-2024-fourteenth-amendment-083b1271 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|first1=Jed|last1=Rubenfeld|date=January 4, 2024 |title=A Solution to the Trump Ballot Conundrum |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-solution-to-the-trump-ballot-conundrum-griffin-colorado-us-supreme-court-6d6b64ef |website=The Wall Street Journal |access-date=January 9, 2024 |archive-date=January 9, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240109075234/https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-solution-to-the-trump-ballot-conundrum-griffin-colorado-us-supreme-court-6d6b64ef|url-status=live }}</ref>
There has been widespread [[doxing]], [[swatting]], [[Bomb threat|bomb scares]], and other violent threats made against politicians who have attempted to remove Trump from the ballot. On December 29, 2023, Secretary Bellows was swatted.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last1=Elena |first1=Maria |date=December 30, 2023 |title=Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows' home targeted with swatting call |url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/12/30/metro/shenna-bellows-maine-home-targeted-by-swatters/ |access-date=December 30, 2023 |website=[[The Boston Globe]] |language=en-US |archive-date=December 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231230221518/https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/12/30/metro/shenna-bellows-maine-home-targeted-by-swatters/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The incidents are part of a broader [[2023 swatting of American politicians|spate of swatting attacks]].<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Lee|first1=Dave|date=January 4, 2024 |title=US Must Stop 'Swatting' From Becoming an Election Weapon |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-01-04/us-must-stop-swatting-from-becoming-a-deadly-election-weapon|access-date=January 5, 2024|work=Bloomberg.com |language=en |archive-date=January 4, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240104125150/https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-01-04/us-must-stop-swatting-from-becoming-a-deadly-election-weapon|url-status=live }}</ref>
== Background ==
In the aftermath of the [[American Civil War]], the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|14th Amendment]] was enacted. [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Section 3: Disqualification from office for insurrection or rebellion|Section 3]] of the amendment prohibits anyone from holding public office if they had previously sworn an oath to support the Constitution, but then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." The full text of this section reads:
{{quote box|'''Section 3.''' 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.
| align = center
}}
Trump's role in the January 6 United States Capitol attack is cited by opponents as a reason for his disqualification from seeking public office. A state may also make a determination that Trump is disqualified under Section 3 from appearing on that state's ballot.{{r|3CNN}} Trump could appeal in court any disqualification by Congress or by a state.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Wolfe |first1=Jan |date=January 14, 2021 |title=Explainer: Impeachment or the 14th Amendment – Can Trump be barred from future office?|work=[[Reuters]]|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-explainer/explainer-impeachment-or-the-14th-amendment-can-trump-be-barred-from-future-office-idUSKBN29I356 |url-status=live |access-date=November 18, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210129190855/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-explainer/explainer-impeachment-or-the-14th-amendment-can-trump-be-barred-from-future-office-idUSKBN29I356 |archive-date=January 29, 2021}}</ref> In addition to state or federal legislative action, a court action could be brought against Trump seeking his disqualification under Section 3.<ref>{{Cite magazine|last1=Weiss |first1=Debra Cassens |date=January 12, 2021 |title=Could the 14th Amendment be used to disqualify Trump from office?|url=https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/could-the-14th-amendment-be-used-to-disqualify-trump-from-office |url-status=live |magazine=[[ABA Journal]]|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210205021635/https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/could-the-14th-amendment-be-used-to-disqualify-trump-from-office |archive-date=February 5, 2021 |access-date=February 15, 2021}}</ref> The 14th Amendment itself provides a path for Congress to allow such a candidate to run, but this would require a vote of two-thirds of each House to remove such disability.
=== Second Trump impeachment ===
On January 10, 2021, [[Nancy Pelosi]], the [[Speaker of the United States House of Representatives|Speaker of the House]], formally requested Representatives' input as to whether to pursue Section 3 disqualification of outgoing President Donald Trump because of his role in the January 6 Capitol attack.<ref name="3CNN">{{Cite news |last1=Wolf |first1=Zachary B. |date=January 12, 2021 |title=What's the 14th Amendment and how does it work? |work=[[CNN]]|url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/politics/14th-amendment-explainer/index.html |url-status=live |access-date=February 15, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210112120617/https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/politics/14th-amendment-explainer/index.html |archive-date=January 12, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Parks |first1=MaryAlice|date=January 12, 2021 |title=Democrats cite rarely used part of 14th Amendment in new impeachment article|language=en|work=[[ABC News]]|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrats-cite-rarely-part-constitution-impeachment-article/story?id=75177543 |url-status=live |access-date=February 15, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210213212053/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrats-cite-rarely-part-constitution-impeachment-article/story?id=75177543 |archive-date=February 13, 2021}}</ref> On January 13, 2021, a majority of the House of Representatives (232–197) voted to [[Second impeachment of Donald Trump|impeach Trump for "incitement of insurrection"]].<ref>{{cite journal|title=House of Representatives|date=January 13, 2021|journal=[[Congressional Record]]|volume=167|issue=8|page=H191|url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2021-01-13/pdf/CREC-2021-01-13.pdf|access-date=December 30, 2023|archive-date=December 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231230180441/https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2021-01-13/pdf/CREC-2021-01-13.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> In the [[Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump|Senate impeachment trial]], a majority of the Senate (57–43) voted on February 13, 2021, that he was guilty, but this fell short of the two-thirds [[supermajority]] required to convict him.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Senate|date=February 13, 2021|journal=[[Congressional Record]]|volume=167|issue=28|page=S733|url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2021-02-13/pdf/CREC-2021-02-13.pdf|access-date=December 23, 2023|archive-date=February 20, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210220161203/https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2021-02-13/pdf/CREC-2021-02-13.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>
=== Subsequent congressional action ===
{{See also|Aftermath of the January 6 United States Capitol attack}}
On July 1, 2021, the [[United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack|U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol]] was formed. Over a year and a half, the committee interviewed more than a thousand people,<ref>{{cite news |last1=Thrush |first1=Glenn |last2=Broadwater |first2=Luke |date=May 17, 2022 |title=Justice Dept. Is Said to Request Transcripts From Jan. 6 Committee|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/us/politics/jan-6-committee-transcripts.html |access-date=December 20, 2023 |archive-date=May 21, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220521223909/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/us/politics/jan-6-committee-transcripts.html |url-status=live }}</ref> reviewed more than a million documents,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/20221021%20J6%20Cmte%20Subpeona%20to%20Donald%20Trump.pdf |title=Letter from Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman, and Liz Cheney, Vice Chair, to President Donald J. Trump |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221021174523/https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/20221021%20J6%20Cmte%20Subpeona%20to%20Donald%20Trump.pdf |archive-date=October 21, 2022 |date=October 21, 2022 }}</ref> and held [[Public hearings of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack|public hearings]]. On August 5, 2021, in a [[Aftermath of the January 6 United States Capitol attack#Law enforcement award bill|bill]] passed by the [[117th United States Congress]] and signed into law by President [[Joe Biden]] that awarded four [[Congressional Gold Medal]]s to the [[United States Capitol Police]], the [[Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia]], and two U.S. Capitol Police officers who protected the [[United States Capitol]] during the January 6 attack, a finding listed in its first section declared that "On January 6, 2021, a mob of insurrectionists forced its way into the U.S. Capitol building and congressional office buildings and engaged in acts of vandalism, looting, and violently attacked Capitol Police officers."<ref name="CNN 8-5-2021">{{cite news |last1=Vazquez |first1=Maegan |last2=Judd |first2=Donald |date=August 5, 2021 |title=Biden signs bill to award Congressional Gold Medal to police who responded to insurrection |work=CNN |url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/politics/joe-biden-capitol-police-officers-award/index.html |access-date=December 25, 2023 |archive-date=December 30, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231230180441/https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/politics/joe-biden-capitol-police-officers-award/index.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="USPL 117-32">{{uspl|117|32}}, {{usstat|135|322}}</ref> The bill passed overwhelmingly, including the support of 188 House Republicans, with only 21 voting against.<ref>{{cite news |first1=Chris |last1=Cillizza |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/16/politics/gold-medal-january-6-insurrection/index.html |title=Why did 21 Republicans oppose honoring those who served on January 6? |work=[[CNN]] |date=June 16, 2021 |access-date=January 15, 2024 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/21-house-republicans-vote-against-awarding-congressional-gold-medal-to-all-police-officers-who-responded-on-jan-6/2021/06/15/1fd17ac2-ce25-11eb-8cd2-4e95230cfac2_story.html |title=21 House Republicans vote against awarding Congressional Gold Medal to all police officers who responded on Jan. 6 |first=Felicia |last=Sonmez |date=June 15, 2021 |access-date=January 15, 2024 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/house/558620-21-republicans-vote-against-awarding-medals-to-police-who-defended-capitol-on/ |title=21 Republicans vote against awarding medals to police who defended Capitol|newspaper=The Hill |date=June 15, 2021 |last1=Marcos |first1=Cristina |access-date=January 15, 2024 }}</ref> On December 15, 2022, House Democrats introduced a bill finding that Trump was ineligible to hold the office of the Presidency under Section 3,<ref>{{Cite web|last1=Papenfuss |first1=Mary |date=December 16, 2022 |title=41 House Democrats Introduce Bill To Bar 'Insurrectionist' Trump From Presidency|url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/david-cicilline-bill-bar-trump-presidency-jan-6-insurrection_n_639bf0d2e4b0f4895ada049a |website=[[HuffPost]] |language=en |access-date=December 20, 2023 |archive-date=May 1, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230501142137/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/david-cicilline-bill-bar-trump-presidency-jan-6-insurrection_n_639bf0d2e4b0f4895ada049a |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=November 22, 2022 |url=https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/cicilline.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/cicilline_14th-amd-bill_text.pdf |title=A Bill To provide that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to again hold the office of President of the United States or to hold any office, civil or military, under the United States |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230601073857/https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/cicilline.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/cicilline_14th-amd-bill_text.pdf |archive-date=June 1, 2023 }}, H.R. 9578, 117th Cong. (December 15, 2022). See [https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/9578 here] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230712013546/https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/9578 |date=July 12, 2023 }} for more information.</ref> but it did not advance.<ref>{{Cite web |date=December 15, 2022 |title=H.R.9578 – To provide that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to again hold the Office of President of the United States or to hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/9578 |access-date=December 20, 2023 |work=[[117th United States Congress]] |via=congress.gov |archive-date=July 12, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230712013546/https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/9578 |url-status=live }}</ref> On December 22, the House Select January 6 Committee published an 845-page final report.<ref>{{cite news |date=December 22, 2022 |title=Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol – December 00, 2022 – 117th Congress Second Session – House Report 117-000 |work=United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack|url=https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/Report_FinalReport_Jan6SelectCommittee.pdf |url-status=live |access-date=December 22, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221223025524/https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/Report_FinalReport_Jan6SelectCommittee.pdf |archive-date=December 23, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Broadwater|first1=Luke |date=December 22, 2022|title=Jan. 6 Panel Issues Final Report on Effort to Overturn 2020 Election – "Our democratic institutions are only as strong as the commitment of those who are entrusted with their care," Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote in a forward to the report. |work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/22/us/politics/jan-6-committee-report.html |url-status=live |access-date=December 22, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221223030025/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/22/us/politics/jan-6-committee-report.html |archive-date=December 23, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last1=Sangal|first1=Aditi|last2=Hammond|first2=Elise|last3=Chowdhury |first3=Maureen |last4=Vogt |first4=Adrienne |date=December 21, 2022 |title=House Jan. 6 committee report delayed and anticipated to be released Thursday|url=https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/jan-6-committee-final-report/h_ef7fa8b2c6709beeae957f9db89828ea |access-date=December 21, 2022 |website=[[CNN]] |language=en |archive-date=July 12, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230712012438/https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/jan-6-committee-final-report/h_ef7fa8b2c6709beeae957f9db89828ea |url-status=live }}</ref> The final report states that the 17 central findings of the Committee were as follows:
#Beginning election night and continuing through January 6 and thereafter, Donald Trump purposely disseminated false allegations of [[Electoral fraud|fraud]] related to the [[2020 United States presidential election|2020 Presidential election]] in order to aid his effort to overturn the election and for purposes of soliciting contributions. These false claims provoked his supporters to violence on January 6.
#Knowing that he and his supporters had [[Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election|lost dozens of election lawsuits]], and despite his own senior advisors refuting his election fraud claims and urging him to concede his election loss, Donald Trump refused to accept the lawful result of the 2020 election. Rather than honor his constitutional obligation [under Article II, Section III] to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,"{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=552}} President Trump instead plotted to overturn the election outcome.
#Despite knowing that such an action would be illegal, and that no State had or would submit an altered electoral slate, Donald Trump corruptly pressured Vice President [[Mike Pence]] to refuse to count electoral votes during [[2021 United States Electoral College vote count|Congress's joint session on January 6]].
#Donald Trump sought to corrupt the [[United States Department of Justice|U.S. Department of Justice]] by attempting to enlist Department officials to make purposely false statements and thereby aid his effort to overturn the Presidential election. After that effort failed, Donald Trump offered the position of [[United States Attorney General|Acting Attorney General]] to [[Jeffrey Clark|Jeff Clark]] knowing that [[Jeffrey Clark letter|Clark intended to disseminate false information aimed at overturning the election]].
#Without any evidentiary basis and contrary to [[State law (United States)|State]] and [[Law of the United States#Federal law|Federal law]], [[Trump–Raffensperger phone call|Donald Trump unlawfully pressured State officials]] and legislators to change the results of the election in their States.
#Donald Trump oversaw an effort to obtain and transmit [[Trump fake electors plot|false electoral certificates]] to Congress and the [[National Archives and Records Administration|National Archives]].
#Donald Trump pressured Members of Congress to object to valid slates of electors from several States.
#Donald Trump purposely verified false information filed in [[Federal judiciary of the United States|Federal court]].
#Based on false allegations that the election was stolen, Donald Trump summoned tens of thousands of supporters to [[Washington, D.C.|Washington]] for January 6. Although these supporters were angry and some were armed, Donald Trump instructed them to march to the Capitol on January 6 to "take back" their country.
#Knowing that a violent attack on the Capitol was underway and knowing that his words would incite further violence, [[Social media use by Donald Trump|Donald Trump purposely sent a social media message]] publicly condemning Vice President Pence at 2:24 p.m. on January 6.
#Knowing that violence was underway at the Capitol, and despite his duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed, Donald Trump refused repeated requests over a multiple hour period that he instruct his violent supporters to disperse and leave the Capitol, and instead watched the violent attack unfold on television. This failure to act perpetuated the violence at the Capitol and obstructed Congress's proceeding to count electoral votes.
#[[Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election|Each of these actions by Donald Trump was taken in support of a multi-part conspiracy to overturn the lawful results of the 2020 Presidential election]].
#The intelligence community and law enforcement agencies did successfully detect the [[Planning of the January 6 United States Capitol attack|planning for potential violence on January 6]], including planning specifically by the [[Proud Boys]] and [[Oath Keepers|Oath Keeper]] militia groups who ultimately led the attack on the Capitol. As January 6 approached, the intelligence specifically identified the potential for violence at the U.S. Capitol. This intelligence was shared within the executive branch, including with the [[United States Secret Service|Secret Service]] and the [[United States National Security Council|President's National Security Council]].
#Intelligence gathered in advance of January 6 did not support a conclusion that [[Antifa (United States)|Antifa]] or other left-wing groups would likely engage in a violent counter-demonstration, or attack Trump supporters on January 6. Indeed, intelligence from January 5 indicated that some left-wing groups were instructing their members to "stay at home" and not attend on January 6. Ultimately, none of these groups was involved to any material extent with the attack on the Capitol on January 6.
#Neither the intelligence community nor law enforcement obtained intelligence in advance of January 6 on the full extent of the [[Eastman memos|ongoing planning]] by President Trump, [[John Eastman]], [[Rudy Giuliani|Rudolph Giuliani]] and their associates to overturn the certified election results. Such agencies apparently did not (and potentially could not) anticipate the provocation President Trump would offer the crowd in his [[The Ellipse|Ellipse]] speech, that President Trump would "spontaneously" instruct the crowd to march to the Capitol, that President Trump would exacerbate the violent riot by sending his 2:24 p.m. tweet condemning Vice President Pence, or the full scale of the violence and lawlessness that would ensue. Nor did law enforcement anticipate that President Trump would refuse to direct his supporters to leave the Capitol once violence began. No intelligence community advance analysis predicted exactly how President Trump would behave; no such analysis recognized the full scale and extent of the threat to the Capitol on January 6.
#Hundreds of Capitol and DC Metropolitan police officers performed their duties bravely on January 6, and America owes those individuals immense gratitude for their courage in the defense of Congress and our Constitution. Without their bravery, January 6 would have been far worse. Although certain members of the Capitol Police leadership regarded their approach to January 6 as "all hands on deck," the Capitol Police leadership did not have sufficient assets in place to address the violent and lawless crowd. Capitol Police leadership did not anticipate the scale of the violence that would ensue after President Trump instructed tens of thousands of his supporters in the Ellipse crowd to march to the Capitol, and then tweeted at 2:24 p.m. Although Chief [[Steven Sund]] raised the idea of [[District of Columbia National Guard|National Guard]] support, the Capitol Police Board did not request Guard assistance prior to January 6. The Metropolitan Police took an even more proactive approach to January 6, and deployed roughly 800 officers, including responding to the emergency calls for help at the Capitol. Rioters still managed to break their line in certain locations, when the crowd surged forward in the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump's 2:24 p.m. tweet. The Department of Justice readied a group of Federal agents at [[Quantico, Virginia|Quantico]] and in the [[Washington, D.C.|District of Columbia]], anticipating that January 6 could become violent, and then deployed those agents once it became clear that police at the Capitol were overwhelmed. Agents from the [[United States Department of Homeland Security|Department of Homeland Security]] were also deployed to assist.
#President Trump had authority and responsibility to direct deployment of the National Guard in the District of Columbia, but never gave any order to deploy the National Guard on January 6 or on any other day. Nor did he instruct any Federal law enforcement agency to assist. Because the authority to deploy the National Guard had been delegated to the [[United States Department of Defense|Department of Defense]], the [[United States Secretary of Defense|Secretary of Defense]] could, and ultimately did deploy the Guard. Although evidence identifies a likely miscommunication between members of the civilian leadership in the Department of Defense impacting the timing of deployment, the Committee has found no evidence that the Department of Defense intentionally delayed deployment of the National Guard. The Select Committee recognizes that some at the Department had genuine concerns, counseling caution, that President Trump might give an illegal order to use the military in support of his efforts to overturn the election.<ref name="House January 6 Committee pp. 4–7">{{cite report|title=Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol|date=December 22, 2022|publisher=[[United States Government Publishing Office|U.S. Government Publishing Office]]|pages=4–7|url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/pdf/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf|access-date=July 7, 2023|archive-date=July 29, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230729165626/https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/pdf/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf|url-status=live}}{{PD-notice}}</ref>
=== Federal election obstruction case and lawsuits ===
In February 2021, [[List of United States representatives from Mississippi|Mississippi Representative]] [[Bennie Thompson]] filed a [[Thompson v. Trump|lawsuit against Trump]] that alleged that Trump [[incitement|incited]] the January 6 Capitol attack,<ref>{{cite news |last1=Peterson |first1=Kristina |last2=Kendall |first2=Brent |date=February 16, 2021 |title=Trump, Giuliani Accused of Conspiring to Incite U.S. Capitol Riot in New Lawsuit|work=The Wall Street Journal|publisher=News Corp|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-giuliani-accused-of-conspiring-to-incite-a-riot-in-new-lawsuit-11613491170 |access-date=October 5, 2023 |archive-date=October 10, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231010222633/https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-giuliani-accused-of-conspiring-to-incite-a-riot-in-new-lawsuit-11613491170 |url-status=live }}</ref> and [[List of United States representatives from California|California Representative]] [[Eric Swalwell]] and two U.S. Capitol Police officers filed lawsuits against Trump the next month, likewise alleging incitement of the attack.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Kendall|first1=Brent|date=March 5, 2021 |title=Trump Faces New Lawsuit Alleging Incitement of Capitol Riot |work=The Wall Street Journal |publisher=News Corp|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-faces-new-lawsuit-alleging-incitement-of-capitol-riot-11614965456|access-date=October 5, 2023 |archive-date=October 10, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231010222634/https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-faces-new-lawsuit-alleging-incitement-of-capitol-riot-11614965456|url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Diaz|first1=Jaclyn|date=March 31, 2021|title=2 Capitol Police Officers Sue Trump For Injuries Sustained During Jan. 6 Riot|publisher=NPR|url=https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31/982928605/2-capitol-police-officers-sue-trump-for-injuries-sustained-during-jan-6-riot|access-date=December 27, 2023|archive-date=June 26, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210626095928/https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31/982928605/2-capitol-police-officers-sue-trump-for-injuries-sustained-during-jan-6-riot|url-status=live}}</ref> On December 19, 2022, the House Select January 6 Committee voted unanimously to [[Smith special counsel investigation|refer Trump to the U.S. Department of Justice for prosecution]], along with John Eastman.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Mangan |first1=Dan |last2=Wilkie |first2=Christina |date=December 19, 2022 |title=Jan. 6 committee sends DOJ historic criminal referral of Trump over Capitol riot|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/19/jan-6-committee-details-trump-criminal-referral-of-trump-over-capitol-riot.html |access-date=December 19, 2022 |website=[[CNBC]]|language=en|archive-date=December 19, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221219192709/https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/19/jan-6-committee-details-trump-criminal-referral-of-trump-over-capitol-riot.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The committee recommended four charges against Trump: obstruction of an official proceeding; conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to make a false statement; and attempts to "incite", "assist" or "aid or comfort" an insurrection.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Broadwater|first1=Luke|date=December 19, 2022|title=Accusing Trump of insurrection, the Jan. 6 committee refers him to the Justice Dept.|url=https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/12/19/us/jan-6-committee-trump#jan-6-trump-criminal-justice-dept |access-date=December 19, 2022 |website=[[The New York Times]] |archive-date=October 28, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231028223521/https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/12/19/us/jan-6-committee-trump#jan-6-trump-criminal-justice-dept |url-status=live }}</ref> On August 1, 2023, a [[Grand juries in the United States|grand jury]] [[indicted]] Trump in the [[United States District Court for the District of Columbia|District of Columbia U.S. District Court]] on [[Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)|four charges]] for his conduct following the 2020 presidential election through the January 6 Capitol attack: [[Conspiracy against the United States|conspiracy to defraud the United States]] under [[Title 18 of the United States Code]]; [[obstructing an official proceeding]] and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding under the [[Sarbanes–Oxley Act|Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002]]; and [[conspiracy against rights]] under the [[Enforcement Act of 1870]].<ref>{{cite news|title=Trump indicted for efforts to undermine the 2020 election|date=August 1, 2023|work=PBS NewsHour|publisher=WETA|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-indicted-for-efforts-to-undermine-the-2020-election|agency=[[Associated Press]]|access-date=August 1, 2023|archive-date=August 1, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230801215018/https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-indicted-for-efforts-to-undermine-the-2020-election|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Grabenstein|first1=Hannah|last2=Serino|first2=Kenichi |date=August 1, 2023 |title=Read the full indictment against Trump for his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election |work=PBS NewsHour|publisher=WETA|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-full-the-indictment-against-trump-for-his-efforts-to-overturn-the-2020-election |access-date=August 1, 2023 |archive-date=August 1, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230801215859/https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-full-the-indictment-against-trump-for-his-efforts-to-overturn-the-2020-election |url-status=live }}</ref>{{sfn|Berris|2023}}
== Constitutional questions ==
In August 2023, two prominent conservative legal scholars, [[William Baude]] and [[Michael Stokes Paulsen]], wrote in a research paper that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump from being president as a consequence of his actions involving attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023}}<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Cabral |first1=Sam |last2=Epstein |first2=Kayla |date=September 9, 2023 |title=The 14th Amendment plan to disqualify Trump, explained |language=en-GB |work=[[BBC News]]|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66690276 |access-date=November 18, 2023 |archive-date=November 16, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231116221332/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66690276 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Liptak |first1=Adam |date=August 10, 2023 |title=Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection-conservatives.html |access-date=December 20, 2023 |archive-date=August 10, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230810235244/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection-conservatives.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Habeshian |first1=Sareen |date=November 18, 2023 |title=Where efforts to disqualify Trump from 2024 ballot stand|work=Axios|url=https://www.axios.com/2023/11/16/trump-efforts-disqualify-2024-ballot-14th-amendment |access-date=November 18, 2023 |archive-date=November 18, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231118011526/https://www.axios.com/2023/11/16/trump-efforts-disqualify-2024-ballot-14th-amendment |url-status=live }}</ref> Conservative legal scholar [[J. Michael Luttig]] and liberal legal scholar [[Laurence Tribe]] soon concurred in an article they co-wrote, arguing Section 3 protections are automatic and "self-executing", independent of congressional action.<ref>{{cite magazine |last1=Luttig |first1=J. Michael|last2=Tribe|first2=Laurence H. |date=August 19, 2023 |title=The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/ |magazine=[[The Atlantic]]|archive-url=https://archive.today/20230820122539/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/ |archive-date=August 20, 2023|access-date=August 20, 2023}}</ref> On January 5, 2024, the US Supreme Court agreed to decide on the case.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Cole |first1=Devan |date=January 5, 2024 |title=Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Trump can be barred from holding office |url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/politics/supreme-court-trump-colorado-14th-amendment-insurrectionist-clause/index.html |access-date=January 6, 2024 |website=CNN |language=en |archive-date=January 6, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240106202647/https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/politics/supreme-court-trump-colorado-14th-amendment-insurrectionist-clause/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
=== Justiciability and laws of evidence ===
The [[Case or Controversy Clause]] of [[Article Three of the United States Constitution#Section 2: Judicial power, jurisdiction, and trial by jury|Article III, Section II]] states that "The judicial Power [of the Supreme Court and such inferior courts the Congress ordains and establishes] shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution... [and] the Laws of the United States".{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=552–553}} The [[Congressional Research Service]] (CRS) has noted that the Supreme Court required that [[subject-matter jurisdiction]] must be established as a "threshold matter" for [[justiciability]] in ''Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment'' (1998),<ref>{{ussc|name=Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment|volume=523|page=83|pin=94|year=1998}}</ref>{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024b|p=2}} and established the following three-part test in ''[[Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife]]'' (1992) for establishing [[Standing (law)|standing]]:
# The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact"—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is: (a) concrete and particularized (i.e. that the injury must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way); and (b) "actual or imminent, not 'conjectural' or 'hypothetical,{{' "}};
# There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be "fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not ... th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court."
# It must be "likely," as opposed to merely "speculative," that the injury will be "redressed by a favorable decision."<ref>{{ussc|name=Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife|volume=504|page=555|pin=560–561|year=1992}}</ref>{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024b|p=2}}
The CRS also notes that the Supreme Court required in ''[[Warth v. Seldin]]'' (1975) that a plaintiff must "ha[ve] 'alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy' as to warrant his invocation of federal court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court's remedial powers on his behalf."<ref>{{ussc|name=Warth v. Seldin|volume=422|page=490|pin=498–499|year=1975}}</ref>{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024b|p=2}} However, the Supreme Court noted in ''ASARCO v. Kadish'' (1989) that it has "recognized often that the constraints of Article III do not apply to state courts, and accordingly the state courts are not bound by the limitations of a case or controversy or other federal rules of justiciability, even when they address issues of federal law, as when they are called upon to interpret the Constitution".<ref>{{ussc|name=ASARCO v. Kadish|volume=490|page=605|pin=617|year=1989}}</ref>{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024b|p=2}} While the [[political question]] doctrine of the Supreme Court for non-justiciability was established in ''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'' (1803),<ref>{{ussc|name=Marbury v. Madison|volume=5|page=137|year=1803}}</ref><ref>{{cite report|last1=Lampe|first1=Joanna R.|date=June 14, 2022|title=The Political Question Doctrine: An Introduction (Part 1)|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10756|access-date=December 27, 2023|archive-date=December 21, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231221072239/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10756|url-status=live}}</ref> the modern test for whether a controversy constitutes a political question was established in ''[[Baker v. Carr]]'' (1962) with six criteria:
# a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department;
# a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it;
# the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion;
# the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government;
# an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made;
# the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.<ref>{{cite report|last1=Lampe|first1=Joanna R.|date=June 14, 2022|title=The Political Question Doctrine: The Doctrine in the Modern Era (Part 3)|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10758|access-date=December 27, 2023|archive-date=March 7, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230307045629/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10758|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=Baker v. Carr|volume=369|page=186|pin=217|year=1962}}</ref>
In establishing the [[constitutional avoidance]] doctrine of [[Judicial review in the United States|judicial review]], the Supreme Court formulated a seven-rule test in ''[[Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority]]'' (1936) for the justiciability of controversies presenting constitutional questions:
# [[Collusive lawsuit]] rule: The Court will not [rule] upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, nonadversary, proceeding, declining because to decide such questions "is legitimate only in the last resort, and as a necessity in the determination of real, earnest and vital controversy between individuals. It never was the thought that, by means of a friendly suit, a party beaten in the legislature could transfer to the courts an inquiry as to the constitutionality of the legislative act."
# [[Ripeness]]: The Court will not "anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it."
# [[Judicial minimalism|Minimalism]]: The Court will not "formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied."
# [[Last resort rule]]: The Court will not [rule] upon a constitutional question, although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of. ... [I]f a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction or general law, the Court will decide only the latter.
# Standing; [[Mootness]]: The Court will not [rule] upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation.
# Constitutional [[estoppel]]: The Court will not [rule] upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.
# Constitutional avoidance canon: "When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided."<ref>{{cite report|last1=Nolan|first1=Andrew|date=September 2, 2014|title=The Doctrine of Constitutional Avoidance: A Legal Overview|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43706|access-date=December 27, 2023|archive-date=December 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231230182132/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43706|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority|volume=297|page=288|pin=346–348|year=1936}}</ref>
Excluding cases covered by the preceding [[Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States|Original Jurisdiction Clause]], the [[Article Three of the United States Constitution#Section 2: Judicial power, jurisdiction, and trial by jury|Appellate Jurisdiction Clause of Article III, Section II]] states that "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=553}} In ''[[Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey]]'' (1988), the Supreme Court held that public or agency reports that "[set] forth... factual findings" have "assume[d] admissibility in the first instance" as [[Evidence (law)|evidence]] in courts under Rule 803 of the [[Federal Rules of Evidence]] (which were enacted by Congress in 1975),<ref name="CRS 5-22-2020" /><ref>{{USPL|93|595}}, {{USStat|88|1926}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey|volume=488|page=153|pin=154|year=1988}}</ref><ref>Fed. Rules Evid. {{fre|803}}</ref> and established a four-part non-exclusive test to determine the trustworthiness of such reports as [[admissible evidence]] if questioned:
# the timeliness of the investigation;
# the investigator's skill or experience;
# whether a hearing was held;
# possible bias when reports are prepared with a view to possible litigation.<ref>{{ussc|name=Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey|volume=488|page=153|pin=167|year=1988}}</ref>
=== "[O]ffice under ... [O]fficer of the United States" ===
{{Main|Officer of the United States}}
In September 2022, the CRS issued a report on Section 3 that cites an opinion article co-authored by [[South Texas College of Law Houston]] professor [[Josh Blackman]] and [[Maynooth University]] law professor Seth Barrett Tillman (which in turn summarized a law review article Blackman and Tillman co-authored) in noting that the Presidency is not explicitly included in the text of Section 3, and as such, could possibly be exempt from the section's terms.{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=2}}<ref>{{cite web |last1=Blackman |first1=Josh |last2=Tillman |first2=Seth Barrett |date=January 20, 2021 |title=Is the President an "officer of the United States" for purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment?|url=https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/20/is-the-president-an-officer-of-the-united-states-for-purposes-of-section-3-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/ |access-date=December 7, 2023 |website=[[The Volokh Conspiracy]] |publisher=[[Reason Foundation]] |archive-date=November 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231130042420/https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/20/is-the-president-an-officer-of-the-united-states-for-purposes-of-section-3-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Blackman and Tillman note that since Trump never took an [[oath of office]] as a [[United States Congress|member of Congress]], nor as a [[State legislature (United States)|state legislator]], nor as a [[State governments of the United States|state executive]] or judicial officer, and has only taken the [[Oath of office of the President of the United States|presidential oath of office]], that Trump can only be disqualified under Section 3 if the President is an "officer of the United States".{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2021a|p=3}}
==== Appointments Clause and other clauses ====
Citing the ''[[Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States]]'' written by [[Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court Associate Justice]] [[Joseph Story]],{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2021a|p=10}} Blackman and Tillman argue that the President is not an officer of the United States when considering usage in [[Article One of the United States Constitution|Article I]], [[Article Two of the United States Constitution|Article II]], and [[Article Six of the United States Constitution|Article VI]] of the phrases "officer of the United States" and "office under the United States" which they contend are [[Jargon#Legal jargon|legal terms of art]] that refer to distinct classes of positions within the federal government.{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2021a|pp=5–21}}{{efn|Blackman and Tillman specifically cite usage in the Impeachment Disqualification Clause of Article I, Section III,{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=544}} the Ineligibility Clause of Article I, Section VI,{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=545}} the Presidential Electors Clause and Presidential Succession Clause of Article II, Section I,{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=549–551}} the Appointments Clause of Article II, Section II,{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=552}} the Commissions Clause of Article II, Section III,{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=552}} the Impeachment Clause of Article II, Section IV,{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=552}} and the Oath or Affirmation Clause and No Religious Test Clause of Article VI.{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=555–556}}}} Blackman and Tillman further argue that the former phrase excludes all legislative branch officers of the federal government, that the elected officials of the federal government are not included among the "officers of the United States" under ''[[Mississippi v. Johnson]]'' (1867),<ref>{{ussc|name=Mississippi v. Johnson|volume=71|page=475|year=1867}}</ref> ''[[United States v. Hartwell]]'' (1867),<ref>{{ussc|name=United States v. Hartwell|volume=73|page=385|year=1867}}</ref> ''[[United States v. Mouat]]'' (1888),<ref>{{ussc|name=United States v. Mouat|volume=124|page=303|year=1888}}</ref> and ''[[Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board]]'' (2010),<ref>{{ussc|name=Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board|volume=561|page=477|year=2010}}</ref> and that there was no drift in the meaning of "officer of the United States" between the ratification of the federal constitution in 1788 and the ''Mouat'' decision twenty years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868.{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2021a|pp=21–31}}{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024a|p=5}} Based upon their law review article, Blackman and Tillman also co-authored a law review article in response to Baude and Paulsen.{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2023}}
Blackman and Tillman cite the fact that the Committee of Style at the [[Constitutional Convention (United States)|1787 Constitutional Convention]] shortened the use of "Officer of the United States" in the [[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 6: Vacancy and disability|Presidential Succession Clause of Article II, Section I]] to "Officer" and changed "[The President, the Vice President] and ''other'' civil Officers of the United States"{{efn|in "[The President] shall be removed from his office on impeachment by the House of representatives, and conviction by the Senate, for treason or bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States; the Vice President and ''other'' civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on impeachment and conviction as aforesaid;"}} [emphasis added] to "The President, Vice President and ''all'' civil Officers of the United States" [emphasis added] in the [[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Section 4: Impeachment|Impeachment Clause of Article II, Section IV]] as evidence that the phrases "officer of the United States" and "office under the United States" were not used indiscriminately by the Framers.{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2021a|pp=9–10}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=551–552}}<ref>{{Cite web |date=1911 |editor-last=Farrand |editor-first=Max |title=The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Volume II|url=https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/farrand-the-records-of-the-federal-convention-of-1787-vol-2 |access-date=December 15, 2023 |website=Online Library of Liberty |language=en |archive-date=December 15, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231215081102/https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/farrand-the-records-of-the-federal-convention-of-1787-vol-2 |url-status=live }}</ref> Despite the fact that the [[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 2: Method of choosing electors|Presidential Electors Clause of Article II, Section I]] requires that "no ... Person holding an Office ... under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector",{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=549–550}} that the [[No Religious Test Clause]] of Article VI requires that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office ... under the United States",{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024a|p=5}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=556}} and that the [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 7: Judgment in cases of impeachment; Punishment on conviction|Impeachment Disqualification Clause of Article I, Section III]] states that conviction in a [[Federal impeachment trial in the United States|federal impeachment trial]] extends to "disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office ... under the United States",{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=544}}<ref name="Somin Volokh Conspiracy 9-16-2023">{{cite web |last1=Somin |first1=Ilya |date=September 16, 2023 |title=Why President Trump is an "Officer" who Can be Disqualified From Holding Public Office Under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment|url=https://reason.com/volokh/2023/09/16/why-president-trump-is-an-officer-who-can-be-disqualified-from-holding-public-office-under-section-3-of-the-14th-amendment/ |access-date=December 14, 2023|website=The Volokh Conspiracy |publisher=Reason Foundation |archive-date=December 17, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231217020500/https://reason.com/volokh/2023/09/16/why-president-trump-is-an-officer-who-can-be-disqualified-from-holding-public-office-under-section-3-of-the-14th-amendment/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Blackman and Tillman argue that elected officials do not hold "offices under the United States" under the [[Constitution of the United States#Articles|Constitution's first seven articles]] and take no position on whether the Presidency and Vice Presidency are "office[s] under the United States" in Section 3.{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2021a|pp=17; 25}}<ref>{{Cite journal| last1=Tillman |first1=Seth Barrett|last2=Blackman|first2=Josh|date=2023 |title=Officers and Offices of the Constitution Part IV: The 'Office ... under the United States' Drafting Convention |journal=S. Tex Law Rev.|volume=62| issue=4 |ssrn=4432246 |ssrn-access=free |language=en}}</ref>
Blackman and Tillman also claim that the [[Clerk of the United States House of Representatives|Clerk of the House of Representatives]] and the [[Secretary of the United States Senate|Secretary of the Senate]] do not take an oath of office pursuant to the [[Article Six of the United States Constitution#Oaths|Oath or Affirmation Clause of Article VI]].{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2021a|p=15}} Conversely, after examining appointment practices during the [[1st United States Congress]], and using a ''[[corpus linguistics]]'' analysis of the ''[[The Federalist Papers]]'', the [[Anti-Federalist Papers]], ''[[Jonathan Elliot (historian)|Elliot's Debates]]'', ''[[Max Farrand|Farrand's Records]]'', ''[[An Universal Etymological English Dictionary]]'' compiled by lexicographer [[Nathan Bailey]], and other contemporaneous dictionaries, [[Antonin Scalia Law School]] professor Jennifer L. Mascott has argued that the [[Originalism|original public meaning]] of "officer" as used in the [[Appointments Clause]] of Article II, Section II encompassed any government official with responsibility for an ongoing governmental duty and likely extended to officials not currently appointed as Article II officers.{{sfn|Mascott|2018}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=552}} Citing Mascott,{{sfn|Mascott|2018|pp=459–460}} Myles S. Lynch notes in a law review article published by the ''William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal'' in 2021 that the current controlling case for whether a position is an officer of the United States or a federal government employee is ''[[Buckley v. Valeo]]'' (1976),{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=158–160}} where the Supreme Court established that "any appointee exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States is an 'Officer of the United States.{{' "}}<ref>{{ussc|name=Buckley v. Valeo|volume=424|page=1|pin=126|year=1976}}</ref>
In an opinion issued in 2007 reviewing the ''Buckley v. Valeo'' decision under the terms of the Appointments Clause, the [[Office of Legal Counsel]] (OLC) concluded that "A position to which is delegated by legal authority a portion of the sovereign powers of the federal government and that is 'continuing' is a federal office... [and a] person who would hold such a position must be ... an 'Officer of the United States{{' "}}.<ref>{{cite report|last=Bradbury|first=Steven G.|author-link=Steven G. Bradbury|date=April 16, 2007|title=Officers of the United States Within the Meaning of the Appointments Clause|publisher=Office of Legal Counsel|volume=31, Opinions|pages=73–122|url=https://www.justice.gov/file/494641/dl?inline|access-date=January 11, 2024}}</ref> Mascott notes that the OLC and the Supreme Court in cases subsequent to ''Buckley v. Valeo'' have expanded the original public meaning of "officer" to include positions that the 1st United States Congress would not have considered "officers", but also restricted the original public meaning to include only positions with a "significant" delegation of sovereign power.{{sfn|Mascott|2018|pp=462–470}} Lynch argues that Mascott's conclusion about the original public meaning of "officer" is consistent with [[Judicial interpretation#Basis for judicial interpretation|functionalist]] and [[Legal formalism|formalist]] tests established in the Supreme Court's rulings in ''United States v. Hartwell'' and ''[[United States v. Germaine]]'' (1878) for what positions qualify as "officers".{{sfn|Lynch|2021|p=161}}<ref>{{ussc|name=United States v. Hartwell|volume=73|page=385|pin=393|year=1867}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=United States v. Germaine|volume=99|page=508|pin=510–512|year=1878}}</ref>{{sfn|Murrill|2018|pp=18–22}} Following the Court's opinions in ''United States v. Hartwell'', ''United States v. Germaine'', and ''Buckley v. Valeo'', the 2007 OLC opinion, and Mascott's research, Lynch argues that the Presidency and Vice Presidency are "offices under the United States" and the President and Vice President are "officers of the United States", because the Presidency is clearly delegated part of the sovereign powers of the United States for a period of continuous exercise and both positions are held by persons who obtain the positions by constitutionally mandated procedures.{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=161–162}}
In delegating to Congress the power to pass legislation providing for the case of a dual vacancy in the Presidency and Vice Presidency, the Presidential Succession Clause states that Congress shall "declar[e] what Officer shall ... act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly".{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=551}} Pursuant to the Presidential Succession Clause, the [[2nd United States Congress]] passed the [[Presidential Succession Act#Presidential Succession Act of 1792|Presidential Succession Act of 1792]] that included the [[Speaker of the United States House of Representatives|Speaker of the House of Representatives]] and [[President pro tempore of the United States Senate|President pro tempore of the Senate]] in the [[United States presidential line of succession|presidential line of succession]].{{sfn|Neale|2020a|p=3}}{{sfn|Continuity of Government Commission|2009|pp=25–29}} The CRS and the [[Continuity of Government Commission]] have noted that the use of "Officer" in the clause caused debate in Congress at the time over whether including legislative branch officers in the presidential line of succession was constitutional, with opponents of the bill (who included [[James Madison]]) arguing that the use of "Officer" in the clause referred to "Officer of the United States" and that officers of the United States were limited to executive branch officers.{{sfn|Neale|2020a|p=3}}{{sfn|Continuity of Government Commission|2009|pp=25–29}} After the [[49th United States Congress]] removed the Speaker and the President pro tem from the presidential line of succession when passing the [[Presidential Succession Act#Presidential Succession Act of 1886|Presidential Succession Act of 1886]],{{sfn|Continuity of Government Commission|2009|pp=29–30}}{{sfn|Neale|2020a|p=4}} the [[80th United States Congress]] restored the positions to the presidential line of succession under the [[Presidential Succession Act#Presidential Succession Act of 1947|Presidential Succession Act of 1947]].{{sfn|Continuity of Government Commission|2009|pp=32–33}}{{sfn|Neale|2020a|pp=4–6}}
While congressional debate on both bills revisited whether including legislative branch officers in the presidential line of succession was constitutional, the 80th United States Congress restored their inclusion when considering that the Presidential Succession Act of 1792 was in effect for 94 years before being repealed, and was the contemporaneous effectuation of the Presidential Succession Clause, and that some of the members of the 2nd United States Congress who supported the bill were also Constitutional Convention delegates.{{sfn|Neale|2020a|pp=7–8}}{{sfn|Continuity of Government Commission|2009|pp=29–30}} Additionally, the 80th United States Congress also took into consideration the Supreme Court's ruling in ''Lamar v. United States'' (1916) that members of the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] are officers of the United States in upholding a conviction under a federal penal statute that criminalized [[Impersonating a public servant|impersonating]] an officer of the United States for the purpose of committing [[fraud]].{{sfn|Neale|2020a|p=8}}<ref>{{ussc|name=Lamar v. United States|volume=241|page=103|pin=111–113|year=1916}}</ref> Until the ratification of the [[Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|17th Amendment]],{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=563}} [[United States Senate|Senators]] were chosen in [[indirect election]]s by state legislatures under [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 1: Composition and election of senators|Article I, Section III]] and James Madison refers to the indirect elections in ''[[Federalist No. 62]]'' as an "appointment" four times.{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=374–376; 543}}<ref>{{cite web|title=The Avalon Project – Federalist No 62|url=https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed62.asp |access-date=December 12, 2023 |website=[[Avalon Project]] |publisher=[[Yale Law School]] |place=[[New Haven, Connecticut|New Haven, CT]] |archive-date=November 6, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231106073515/https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed62.asp |url-status=live }}</ref> However, [[University of Richmond School of Law]] professor Kurt T. Lash and the CRS note that before the Senate dismissed the [[Article of impeachment|impeachment article]] brought by the House against [[List of United States senators from Tennessee|Tennessee Senator]] [[William Blount]] in 1797 due to lack of jurisdiction (partly because the [[List of United States senators expelled or censured|Senate had already expelled]] Blount), the Senate rejected a resolution that Senators were "civil officers of the United States" subject to impeachment.{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=11–14}}{{sfn|Cole|Garvey|2023|pp=16–17}}
In ''[[Minor v. Happersett]]'' (1875), the Supreme Court refers to the President in ''[[Obiter dictum|obiter dicta]]'' as being among the "elective officers of the United States" along with the Vice President and members of Congress.<ref>{{ussc|name=Minor v. Happersett|volume=88|page=162|pin=170–171|year=1875}}</ref> In ''[[Burr conspiracy|United States v. Burr]]'' (1807), [[Chief Justice of the United States|Chief Justice]] [[John Marshall]], presiding as the Circuit Justice for Virginia,<ref>{{cite web |title=Executive Privilege: Overview – U.S. Constitution Annotated|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-2/clause-3/executive-privilege-overview |access-date=December 14, 2023 |website=[[Legal Information Institute]] |publisher=[[Cornell Law School]] |archive-date=December 14, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231214194436/https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-2/clause-3/executive-privilege-overview |url-status=live }}</ref> noted that "By the Constitution of the United States, the President, as well as any other officer of the government, may be impeached...".<ref>{{cite court|litigants=United States v. Burr|court=C.C.D.Va.|reporter=Fed. Cas.|vol=30|opinion=30, no. 14,692d|date=1807|url=https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_1s19.html|access-date=December 14, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=Mississippi v. Johnson|source=f|volume=71|page=475|pin=479|date=1875}}</ref> [[George Mason University]] law professor [[Ilya Somin]] has argued that the exclusion of the President from the "civil officers of the United States" in the Impeachment Clause of Article II, Section IV is due to the President being the [[Powers of the president of the United States#Commander-in-chief|Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces]] under [[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 1: Command of military; Opinions of cabinet secretaries; Pardons|Article II, Section II]], that use of "appointment" in the Appointments Clause is not mutually exclusive from the use of "election", that the presidential oath of office effectively commissions the President, and that Blackman and Tillman's argument that the Presidency is not an "office under the United States" would lead to the conclusion that impeached and convicted federal government officials could still serve as president but not be appointed to lower federal government positions.<ref name="Somin Volokh Conspiracy 9-16-2023" />{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=552}} Also, under the [[Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution|12th Amendment]], "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President", and as a consequence, the Vice Presidency has the same eligibility requirements as the Presidency.{{sfn|Neale|2020b|pp=3–4}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=561}}
The Appointments Clause states that "[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors... and all other Officers of the United States... but the Congress may ... vest the Appointment of ... inferior Officers... in the President alone",{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=551}} while the [[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 6: Officers' commissions|Commissions Clause of Article II, Section III]] states that "[The President] ... shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=552}} The Oath or Affirmation Clause states that "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned... and all executive and judicial Officers... of the United States... shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution".{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=555–556}} While the Oath or Affirmation Clause does not explicitly require an [[Oath of office of the vice president of the United States|oath of office of the Vice President]], the [[An act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths|Oath Administration Act]] passed by the 1st United States Congress pursuant to the Oath or Affirmation Clause (and which remains in effect) requires that "...the said oath or affirmation ... [required by Article VI] ... shall be administered to [the President of the Senate]" and the Vice President is the President of the Senate under [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 4: Vice president as president of Senate|Article I, Section III]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Vice President's Swearing-In Ceremony|url=http://www.inaugural.senate.gov/days-events/vice-presidents-swearing-in-ceremony |access-date=January 17, 2017 |publisher=[[United States Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies]] |archive-date=January 18, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170118053658/http://www.inaugural.senate.gov/days-events/vice-presidents-swearing-in-ceremony |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{USStat|1|23}}, {{USPL|1|1}}, {{USC|2|22}}</ref>{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=544}} In ''[[Federalist No. 68]]'', [[Alexander Hamilton]] described the indirect election of the President and Vice President by the [[United States Electoral College]] as an "appointment" four times.{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=410–412}}<ref>{{cite web |title=The Avalon Project – Federalist No 68|url=https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp |access-date=September 21, 2023 |website=[[Avalon Project]] |publisher=[[Yale Law School]] |place=[[New Haven, Connecticut|New Haven, CT]] |archive-date=September 24, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220924054528/https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp |url-status=live }}</ref>
Also, in every [[United States presidential election|presidential election]] from [[1788–1789 United States presidential election|1788]] through [[1828 United States presidential election|1828]], multiple state legislatures selected their presidential electors by discretionary appointment rather than on the basis of a poll, while the [[South Carolina General Assembly]] did so in [[United States presidential elections in South Carolina|every presidential election]] through [[1860 United States presidential election|1860]], and the [[Florida Legislature]] and the [[Colorado General Assembly]] selected their presidential electors by discretionary appointment in [[1868 United States presidential election|1868]] and [[1876 United States presidential election|1876]] respectively.<ref name="Williams 2012 p. 1567">{{cite journal |last1=Williams |first1=Norman R. |year=2012 |title=Why the National Popular Vote Compact is Unconstitutional|url=https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2686&context=lawreview |url-status=live|journal=[[BYU Law Review]] |publisher=[[J. Reuben Clark Law School]]|volume=2012|issue=5|page=1567|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210506175208/https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2686&context=lawreview |archive-date=May 6, 2021 |access-date=October 14, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=1868 Presidential General Election Results|website=[[Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections]]|url=https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=1868|access-date=February 2, 2024}}</ref> In practice, the Presidential Electors Clause bars all federal government employees from serving as presidential electors in addition to explicitly barring members of Congress.<ref>{{cite report|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32611 |title=The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections |last1=Neale |first1=Thomas H. |date=May 15, 2017 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |pages=5–6 |access-date=December 11, 2023 |archive-date=March 2, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210302054826/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/rl/rl32611 |url-status=live }}</ref> The [[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 7: Salary|Domestic Emoluments Clause of Article II, Section I]] requires that "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation... during the Period for which he shall have been elected",<ref name="CRS 1-27-2021">{{cite report|last1=Hickey|first1=Kevin J.|last2=Foster|first2=Michael A.|date=January 27, 2021|title=The Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11086|access-date=December 31, 2023|archive-date=April 22, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210422230231/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11086|url-status=live}}</ref>{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=551}} and the current salary of the President and Vice President are $400,000 per year and $235,100 per year respectively.<ref>{{usc|3|102}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last1=Groppe|first1=Maureeen |date=February 14, 2019 |title=Vice President Pence's pay bump is not as big as Republicans wanted|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/14/vice-president-pences-salary-rising-but-not-much-gop-wanted/2872326002/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190415044023/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/14/vice-president-pences-salary-rising-but-not-much-gop-wanted/2872326002/ |archive-date=April 15, 2019 |access-date=April 15, 2019 |website=[[USA Today]] |language=en}}</ref> While the text of the [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 5: Speaker and other officers; Impeachment|House Officers Clause of Article I, Section II]] does not explicitly require the Speaker of the House to be a House member,<ref name="Heitshusen CRS 5-16-2017">{{cite report|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/97-780 |title=The Speaker of the House: House Officer, Party Leader, and Representative |last1=Heitshusen |first1=Valerie |date=May 16, 2017 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |page=2 |access-date=October 5, 2023 |archive-date=January 14, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210114194706/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/97-780 |url-status=live }}</ref>{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=543}} all Speakers have been House members and the text of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 assumes that the Speaker is a House member in requiring the Speaker's resignation upon succession to the Presidency due to the [[Ineligibility Clause]] of Article I, Section VI.<ref>{{cite report|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44243 |title=Electing the Speaker of the House of Representatives: Frequently Asked Questions |last1=Heitshusen |first1=Valerie |date=May 31, 2023 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |page=2 |access-date=October 5, 2023 |archive-date=October 4, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231004185257/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44243 |url-status=live }}</ref>{{sfn|Neale|2020a|p=5}}
The Ineligibility Clause states that "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under ... the United States ... and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=545}} Even though the Clerk of the House of Representatives is not a House member and no Secretary of the Senate has been an incumbent Senator,<ref name="Heitshusen CRS 5-16-2017" /><ref>{{cite report|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/98-747 |title=Secretary of the Senate: Legislative and Administrative Duties |last1=Straus |first1=Jacob R.|date=February 12, 2013 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |pages=5–6 |access-date=December 12, 2023 |archive-date=September 29, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210929083445/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/98-747|url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=U.S. Senate: About the Secretary of the Senate – Secretaries|url=https://www.senate.gov/about/officers-staff/secretary-of-the-senate/secretaries.htm|website=senate.gov|publisher=United States Senate |access-date=December 20, 2023 |archive-date=December 12, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231212161509/https://www.senate.gov/about/officers-staff/secretary-of-the-senate/secretaries.htm|url-status=live }}</ref> the Oath Administration Act provides that "...the oath or affirmation [required by Article VI]... shall be administered ... to the Speaker... and to the [C]lerk" and that "the [S]ecretary of the Senate... shall... [take] the oath or affirmation [required by Article VI]".<ref>{{USStat|1|23}}, {{USPL|1|1}}, {{USC|2|25}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives – About The Clerk|url=https://clerk.house.gov/About#OverviewContact |access-date=October 15, 2023 |publisher=Clerk of the United States House of Representatives |archive-date=July 1, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230701130402/https://clerk.house.gov/About#OverviewContact |url-status=live }}</ref> In holding in ''[[NLRB v. Noel Canning|National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning]]'' (2014) that the [[Recess appointment|Recess Appointments Clause of Article II, Section II]] does not authorize the President to make appointments while the Senate is in ''[[pro forma]]'' sessions,{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=552}} the Supreme Court cited ''Marbury v. Madison'' and ''[[McCulloch v. Maryland]]'' (1819) in concluding that "The longstanding 'practice of the government' ... can inform [the] determination of 'what the law is{{' "}}.{{sfn|Murrill|2018|pp=22–23}}<ref>{{ussc|name=NLRB v. Noel Canning|volume=573|page=513|docket=12-1281|slip=7|year=2014}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=Marbury v. Madison|volume=5|page=137|pin=177|year=1803}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=McCulloch v. Maryland|volume=17|page=316|pin=401|year=1819}}</ref>
In upholding the [[Congressional charter|authority of Congress to issue]] the [[Articles of association|corporate charter]] for the [[Second Bank of the United States]] in 1816 under the [[Necessary and Proper Clause]] of Article I, Section VIII, the Supreme Court noted in ''McCulloch v. Maryland'' that the 1st United States Congress actively debated whether issuing the corporate charter for the [[First Bank of the United States]] was constitutional, but "After being resisted first in the fair and open field of debate, and afterwards in the executive cabinet... [the bill] became a law" in 1791, and as the law was "[a]n exposition of the Constitution, deliberately established by legislative acts... [and] not to be lightly disregarded", the Court concluded that whether Congress had the authority to incorporate a bank by the time of the ''McCulloch'' decision could "scarcely be considered as an open question."<ref>{{ussc|name=McCulloch v. Maryland|volume=17|page=316|pin=401–402|year=1819}}</ref><ref>{{Cite report|url=https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RS22230.pdf |title=Congressional or Federal Charters: Overview and Enduring Issues|last1=Kosar|first1=Kevin R. |date=April 19, 2013 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |pages=1–2 |access-date=May 3, 2022 |website=[[Federation of American Scientists]] |archive-date=May 17, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220517232312/https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RS22230.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite report|last1=Hogue|first1=Henry B.|date=September 8, 2022|title=Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices|publisher=Congressional Research Service|page=8|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47236|access-date=December 21, 2023|archive-date=December 20, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231220220853/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47236|url-status=live}}</ref>{{sfn|Murrill|2018|pp=18–22}} Along with Blackman and Tillman,{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2021a}}{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2023|pp=185–229}} Lash argues that the exclusion of the Presidency in Section 3 and from the "civil officers of the United States" in the Impeachment Clause of Article II, Section IV leads to the conclusion that the President is not an officer of the United States following ''[[Statutory interpretation#Textual canons|expressio unius]]''.{{sfn|Lash|2023|p=5}}{{sfn|Brannon|2023|p=51}}{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024a|p=2}}
Blackman and Tillman also argue that because the President does not take an oath of office pursuant to the Oath or Affirmation Clause and that the text of the presidential oath of office provided in [[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 8: Oath or affirmation|Article II, Section I]] does not include the word "support",{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=551}} that the President is exempted from the terms of Section 3.{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2021a|p=24}}{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2023|p=186}} Conversely, the CRS suggests that the fact that the text of the presidential oath of office is specifically provided in Article II, Section I does not mean that it is not also an oath of office within the terms of the Oath or Affirmation Clause or Section 3, and also suggests that it would be anomalous that the presidential oath of office would exempt the Presidency from both Section 3 and the [[Religious qualifications for public office in the United States|proscription against religious tests as a qualification]] for "office[s] under the United States" in the No Religious Test Clause, but that the Vice Presidency would remain subject to both Section 3 and the No Religious Test Clause.{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024a|p=5}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=556}} The [[Establishment Clause]] of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|1st Amendment]] also provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an [[State religion|establishment of religion]]".{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=558}}
Noting Blackman and Tillman's arguments about the meaning of "officer of the United States" and "office under the United States" in the first seven articles,{{sfn|Vlahoplus|2023|pp=6–7}} John Vlahoplus argues in a law review article accepted by the ''[[British Journal of American Legal Studies]]'' in May 2023 that 19th century usage of the phrases included the Presidency citing an 1834 [[United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs|House Foreign Affairs Committee]] report that concluded that the [[Foreign Emoluments Clause]] of [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Section 9: Limits on Federal power|Article I, Section IX]] applied to the President.{{sfn|Vlahoplus|2023|pp=7–10}} The Foreign Emoluments Clause states that "no Person holding any Office … under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."<ref name="CRS 1-27-2021" />{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=549}} Also in contrast to Blackman and Tillman, Vlahoplus cites the Supreme Court in ''United States v. Mouat'' as holding that "any person holding employment or appointment under the United States" were "persons serving under the Government of the United States."{{sfn|Vlahoplus|2023|p=11}}<ref>{{ussc|name=United States v. Mouat|volume=124|page=303|pin=305–306|year=1888}}</ref> The CRS notes that the Constitution refers to the Presidency as an "office" in total 25 times,{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024a|p=2}} and as such, Baude and Paulsen,{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=104–112}} Vlahoplus,{{sfn|Vlahoplus|2023}} and [[University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law|University of Maryland School of Law]] professor Mark A. Graber all argue that the Presidency must be an "office under the United States" and the President must be an "officer of the United States" following the [[Plain meaning rule|plain meaning of the text]].{{sfn|Graber|2023a}}{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024a|p=5}}{{sfn|Brannon|2023|pp=21–24}}
==== Section 3 drafting and ratification history ====
Citing a law review article written by [[Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law|Indiana University School of Law]] professor [[Gerard Magliocca]],{{sfn|Magliocca|2021}} the CRS report notes an exchange in congressional debate between [[List of United States senators from Maryland|Maryland Senator]] [[Reverdy Johnson]] and [[List of United States senators from Maine|Maine Senator]] [[Lot M. Morrill]] during the drafting process of Section 3 in concluding that it could be more likely that the President is an officer of the United States subject to disqualification under the section:
{{blockquote|text=[Mr. JOHNSON.] ... I do not see but that any one of these gentlemen may be elected President or Vice President of the United States, and why did you omit to exclude them? I do not understand them to be excluded from the privilege of holding the two highest offices in the gift of the nation. ...
Mr. MORRILL. Let me call the Senator's attention to the words "or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States."
Mr. JOHNSON. Perhaps I am wrong as to the exclusion from the Presidency; no doubt I am; but I was misled by noticing the specific exclusion in the case of Senators and Representatives. ...|multiline=yes|title=''[[Congressional Record|Congressional Globe]]'' Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866. p. 2899.<ref>{{Cite web |date=May 30, 1866 |publisher=[[Congressional Record|Congressional Globe]] |work=[[39th United States Congress]] |title=In Senate: Wednesday, May 30, 1866: Reconstruction |url=https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=20 |access-date=2023-12-09 |via=The Library of Congress |language=en |archive-date=December 9, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231209021137/https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=20 |url-status=live}}</ref>{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=2}}{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024a|p=4}}}}
Along with Magliocca, Baude and Paulsen cite the exchange between Senators Johnson and Morrill in disputing Blackman and Tillman's argument, and argue further that Blackman and Tillman's argument "implausibly splits linguistic hairs".{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|p=109}} Vlahoplus that argues that in the context of Section 3 the President is an officer of the United States and the Presidency is an office under the United States citing the 1862 statute formulating the [[Ironclad Oath]], which said "every person elected or appointed to any office of honor or profit under the government of the United States, either in the civil, military, or naval departments of the public service, excepting the President of the United States".<ref>{{Cite news |date=March 13, 1863 |title=Senate Special Session|page=98|url=https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/TestOath1863_CongressionalGlobe.pdf |access-date=December 23, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=June 5, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230605025444/https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/TestOath1863_CongressionalGlobe.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> Vlahoplus argues that this acknowledged the Presidency as an "office ... under the government of the United States".{{sfn|Vlahoplus|2023|pp=10–11}} Lynch likewise cites the Ironclad Oath in arguing that the President is an officer of the United States,{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=165–167}} and Lynch also cites the [[United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia|U.S. Circuit Court of the District of Columbia]] ruling affirmed in the Supreme Court's ruling in ''Kendall v. United States ex Rel. Stokes'' (1838) as stating "The president himself . . . is but an officer of the United States".{{sfn|Lynch|2021|p=163}}<ref>{{ussc|name=Kendall v. United States ex Rel. Stokes|volume=37|page=524|year=1838}}</ref>
Noting that Story's ''Commentaries'' references the Blount impeachment trial in arguing that the President, Vice President, and members of Congress of the federal government were not "civil officers of the United States", Lash argues that the framers of Section 3 accepted Story's analysis of the Blount impeachment as authoritative and was cited extensively in newspaper coverage during the ratification of the 14th Amendment,{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=12–13; 48–50}} and Lash argues that Reverdy Johnson was following ''expressio unius'' in his exchange with Morrill given his familiarity with the Blount impeachment trial.{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=12; 33–37}} Conversely, Graber has noted that a congressional report presented to the [[39th United States Congress]] concluded that "a little consideration of this matter will show that 'officers of' and 'officers under' the United States are ... 'indiscriminately used in the Constitution.{{' "}}<ref>{{cite web |last1=Graber |first1=Mark A. |date=February 23, 2023|title=Disqualification From Office: Donald Trump v. the 39th Congress|url=https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/disqualification-office-donald-trump-v-39th-congress |access-date=December 16, 2023 |website=[[Lawfare (website)|Lawfare]]|publisher=[[Brookings Institution]]/Lawfare Institute |archive-date=December 16, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231216222604/https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/disqualification-office-donald-trump-v-39th-congress|url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |date=July 19, 1866 |title=First Session of the 39th Congress|url=https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=074/llcg074.db&recNum=100 |journal=[[United States House Journal]] |publisher=[[Library of Congress]] |page=3939 |access-date=December 16, 2023 |archive-date=December 16, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231216222604/https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=074/llcg074.db&recNum=100 |url-status=live }}</ref> Surveying congressional debate in the ''Congressional Globe'', Graber states that no members of Congress during the drafting of the 14th Amendment saw any distinction between the presidential oath of office and the oath of office required by the Oath or Affirmation Clause and most members of Congress involved in the drafting typically referred to the President as an "officer of the United States" and the Presidency as an "office under the United States".{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=17–24}}
Likewise, Vlahoplus states that members of Congress saw no distinction between the presidential oath of office and the oath of office required by the Oath or Affirmation Clause.{{sfn|Vlahoplus|2023|pp=10–11}} Vlahoplus argues that there is an "essential harmony" between the phrases "officer of the United States" and "office under the United States" in concluding that the President is an "officer of the United States" and the Presidency is an "office under the United States".{{sfn|Vlahoplus|2023|pp=21–25}} While Lash notes that Republican members of Congress ridiculed President [[Andrew Johnson]] for referring to the President as the "chief civil executive officer of the United States",{{sfn|Lash|2023|p=13}} Vlahoplus notes that Presidents, beginning with George Washington and through James A. Garfield, were commonly referred to by the general public and by the 39th United States Congress specifically as the "first executive officer of the United States" and the "chief executive officer of the United States" and in reference to the presidential election process, the constitutional position as head of the executive branch.{{sfn|Vlahoplus|2023|pp=16–19}} Also, the Supreme Court stated in ''[[Nixon v. Fitzgerald]]'' (1982) that the delegation of executive power under the [[Vesting Clauses|Vesting Clause of Article II, Section I]] "establishes the President as the chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch".<ref>{{ussc|name=Nixon v. Fitzgerald|volume=457|page=731|pin=749–750|year=1982}}</ref>{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=549}}
In light of the exchange between Senators Reverdy Johnson and Lot Morrill on Section 3, Magliocca argues that Congress did not intend and the public at the time would not have understood the text of Section 3 to mean that [[Jefferson Davis]] could not have served as a representative or senator, but could have served as president of the United States after serving as [[President of the Confederate States of America|President of the Confederate States]].{{sfn|Magliocca|2021|pp=10–11}} Lynch likewise argues that it is unlikely that the framers of Section 3 and the public would have understood the text to mean that an ex-Confederate could be elected President,{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=162–165}} while Graber argues that congressional debate on the drafting of the 14th Amendment demonstrates that the clause was explicitly intended to prevent ex-Confederate officials from assuming federal offices.{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=4–7}} Vlahoplus also cites the Johnson-Morrill exchange and contemporaneous newspaper coverage of the 14th Amendment's drafting and ratification debates that explicitly refer to Jefferson Davis in the context of Section 3 in arguing that Section 3 applies to the Presidency.{{sfn|Vlahoplus|2023|pp=7–10}} Conversely, Lash argues that the congressional and ratification debates on Section 3 focused on preventing Jefferson Davis from returning to Congress and preventing presidential electors from voting for Davis rather than Davis from serving as President or Vice President.{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=18–19; 46–48}}
Citing a proposal for the 14th Amendment drafted by [[List of United States representatives from Kentucky|Kentucky Representative]] [[Samuel McKee (politician, born 1833)|Samuel McKee]] that explicitly included the President and Vice President among the offices from which disqualified persons would be barred,<ref>{{cite journal |date=January 16, 1866 |title=Second Session of the 40th Congress |url=https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=079/llcg079.db&recNum=919 |journal=[[United States Senate Journal]] |publisher=[[Library of Congress]] |page=556 |access-date=January 1, 2024 |archive-date=January 7, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240107020940/https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=079/llcg079.db&recNum=919 |url-status=live }}</ref> Lash argues that the President and Vice President were omitted from the text of Section 3 intentionally.{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=14–29}}{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024a|pp=2–3}} However, the CRS notes that the text of McKee's proposal does not appear in the journal of the [[United States Congressional Joint Committee on Reconstruction|Joint Committee on Reconstruction]] that drafted the 14th Amendment and was instead referred to the [[United States House Committee on the Judiciary|House Judiciary Committee]], and the CRS also notes that McKee's proposal never received a vote in Congress and there is no clear direct evidence that it was even considered.{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024a|pp=3–5}} The CRS also notes that a bill submitted by [[List of United States representatives from Massachusetts|Massachusetts Representative]] [[George S. Boutwell]] that required disqualification from "any office under the Government of the United States" also never received a vote in Congress, and that the language that was ultimately included in Section 3 was an edited version of a proposal drafted by [[List of United States senators from New Hampshire|New Hampshire Senator]] [[Daniel Clark (New Hampshire politician)|Daniel Clark]], which was proposed by [[List of United States senators from Michigan|Michigan Senator]] [[Jacob M. Howard]] after Reverdy Johnson successfully moved to strike Section 3 from the proposal for the 14th Amendment as initially reported to the Senate.{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024a|pp=4–5}}{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=29–33}}{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=14–17}}
Vlahoplus also cites a pair of official legal opinions issued by [[United States Attorney General|Attorney General]] [[Henry Stanbery]] in 1867 on federal statutes that would enforce Section 3 pending the ratification of the 14th Amendment that concluded that the "state executive and judicial officers" in the clause included state governors following the plain meaning of the text and that the Presidency falls within the definition of "officer of the United States" in Stanbery’s opinions.{{sfn|Vlahoplus|2023|pp=13–15}} In remarks made on the final draft of Section 3 at the final House debate, [[List of United States representatives from Pennsylvania|Pennsylvania Representative]] [[Thaddeus Stevens]] stated that "The third section has been wholly changed by substituting the ineligibility of certain high officers for the disenfranchisement of all rebels until 1870. This I cannot look upon as an improvement. … In my judgment it endangers the government of the country, both State and national; and may give the next Congress and President to the reconstructed rebels."<ref name="Congressional Globe 6-13-1866">{{Cite web |date=June 13, 1866 |publisher=Congressional Globe |work=39th United States Congress |title=In Senate: June 13, 1866: Reconstruction |url= https://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/073/0200/02703148.tif|access-date=February 7, 2024 |via=The Library of Congress |page= 3148–3149 |language=en }}</ref>{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=38–39}} Citing Stevens, Lash concludes that it is unclear whether Section 3 applies to the presidential oath of office and bars individuals from holding the Presidency but concedes that Section 3 could be read to include the President.{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=57–62}} Reiterating the exchange between Senators Johnson and Morrill, the CRS concludes that the drafting history of the 14th Amendment may undercut the inference that the President and Vice President were deliberately omitted from Section 3.{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024a|pp=4–5}}
=== "[I]nsurrection or rebellion" ===
{{see also|List of incidents of civil unrest in the United States}}
In its September 2022 report on Section 3, the CRS notes that the Constitution does not define what qualifies as an insurrection or a rebellion but that the [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Section 8: Powers of Congress|Militia Clause of Article I, Section VIII]] authorizes Congress to pass laws to "provide for calling forth the Militia to, execute the Laws of the Union, [and] suppress Insurrections",{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=3}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=547}} while Baude and Paulsen note that [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Section 9: Limits on Federal power|Article I, Section IX]] states that "The Privilege of the Writ of ''[[Habeas corpus in the United States|Habeas Corpus]]'' shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|p=73}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=548}} The CRS, Baude and Paulsen, and Lynch note that Congress passed the [[Insurrection Act of 1807|Insurrection Act]] and [[Militia Acts of 1792|Militia Acts]] pursuant to the Militia Clause, that the Insurrection Act and Militia Acts authorize the President to use the militia and armed forces to prevent "unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States [that] make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings", and that the 1871 amendment to the Insurrection Act authorizes the use of the armed forces to suppress insurrection attempting to "oppose or obstruct the execution of the laws of the United States or impede the course of justice under those laws."{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=3}}{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=87–88}}{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=167–170}} As it is required by the 12th Amendment and effectuated by the [[Electoral Count Act]] and the [[Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022|Electoral Count Reform Act]] (ECRA),{{sfn|Rybicki|Whitaker|2020|p=1}}<ref name="NPR 12-23-2022">{{cite news |last1=Parks |first1=Miles |date=December 23, 2022 |title=Congress passes election reform designed to ward off another Jan. 6|publisher=NPR|url=https://www.npr.org/2022/12/22/1139951463/electoral-count-act-reform-passes |access-date=July 15, 2023 |archive-date=June 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230630093134/https://www.npr.org/2022/12/22/1139951463/electoral-count-act-reform-passes |url-status=live }}</ref>{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=560}} the CRS and Graber note that the [[United States Electoral College#Joint session of Congress|Electoral College vote count]] arguably qualifies as an execution of the laws of the United States.{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=3}}{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=42–43}}
In a dispute over whether the state government and [[Constitution of Rhode Island|constitution]] installed in [[Rhode Island]] by the [[Dorr Rebellion]] or the state government operating under the [[Rhode Island Royal Charter]] was the legitimate state government under the [[Guarantee Clause]] of the [[Article Four of the United States Constitution#Section 4: Obligations of the United States|Article IV, Section IV]],{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=554}} the Supreme Court held in ''[[Luther v. Borden]]'' (1849) that the controversy was a political question that could only be determined by Congress.<ref>{{cite report|last1=Lampe|first1=Joanna R.|date=June 14, 2022|title=The Political Question Doctrine: Historical Background (Part 2)|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10757|access-date=December 27, 2023|archive-date=March 7, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230307045614/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10757|url-status=live}}</ref>{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|p=91}}<ref>{{ussc|name=Luther v. Borden|volume=48|page=1|year=1849}}</ref> The CRS cites the Supreme Court's ruling in ''Luther v. Borden'' as establishing that the Insurrection Act generally leaves the decision to determine whether a civil disturbance qualifies as an insurrection at the discretion of the President with invocation sufficing for disqualification under Section 3.{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=3}} Baude and Paulsen cite the Supreme Court's ruling in the ''[[Prize Cases]]'' (1863) as stating that "This greatest of civil wars was not gradually developed by popular commotion, tumultuous assemblies, or local unorganized insurrections... [but] sprung forth suddenly ... in the full panoply of ''war''. The President was bound to meet it in the shape it presented itself, without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name".{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|p=84–85}}<ref>{{ussc|name=Prize Cases|volume=67|page=635|pin=668–669|year=1863}}</ref> Conversely, surveying federal and state case law on insurrection prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Graber argues that federal and state courts have never required that prosecutors provide evidence of a presidential proclamation being issued in cases related to an insurrection.{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=40–42}}
The CRS also suggests that presidential invocation of the Insurrection Act might be unnecessary to establish an event as an insurrection because the Militia Clause and [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Section 5: Power of enforcement|Section 5 of the 14th Amendment]] probably also provide Congress with the legislative authority to designate an event as an insurrection for determining disqualification under Section 3.{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=3}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=547; 562}} While the Supreme Court held in ''[[Martin v. Mott]]'' (1827) that "The authority to decide whether the exigencies contemplated" under the Militia Clause and the Militia Act of 1795 "have arisen, is exclusively vested in the President, and his decision is conclusive upon all other persons",<ref>{{ussc|name=Martin v. Mott|volume=25|page=19|year=1827}}</ref> Lynch argues that it is unlikely that Congress or courts would allow for public office disqualification pursuant to Section 3 strictly on a President's judgement of whether an insurrection has occurred due to potential [[abuse of power]].{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=180–181}} Along with the definitions of "insurrection" and "rebellion" in the 1828 and 1864 editions of the ''[[Webster's Dictionary|American Dictionary of the English Language]]'' originally compiled by lexicographer [[Noah Webster]], the 1860 abridgement of ''Webster's Dictionary'' compiled by lexicographer [[Joseph Emerson Worcester]], and the 12th edition of ''[[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]]'' released in 1868,{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=70–72}} Baude and Paulsen cite the ''Prize Cases'' as stating that "Insurrection against a government may or may not culminate in an organized rebellion, but a civil war always begins by insurrection against the lawful authority of the Government," in arguing that "insurrection" and "rebellion" are legally distinct.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|p=64}}<ref>{{ussc|name=Prize Cases|volume=67|page=635|pin=666|year=1863}}</ref>
Along with [[Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address]] and Lincoln's July 4, 1861, message to Congress,{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=75–76}} Baude and Paulsen argue that the text of the Ironclad Oath and Sections 2 and 3 of the [[Confiscation Act of 1862|Second Confiscation Act]] are instructive for understanding the original meaning of "insurrection" and "rebellion" in Section 3.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=79–84}} Adopted by the [[37th United States Congress]] in 1862 for the incoming members of the [[38th United States Congress]], the Ironclad Oath states:
{{blockquote|I, A. B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto. And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.<ref>{{usstat|17|502}}</ref>}}
Also passed in 1862 and 6 years prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Sections 2 and 3 of the Second Confiscation Act state:
{{blockquote|[Section 2]. ... [I]f any person shall hereafter incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States, or the laws thereof, or shall give aid or comfort thereto, or shall engage in, or give aid and comfort to, any such existing rebellion or insurrection, and be convicted thereof, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and by the liberation of all his slaves, if any he have; or by both of said punishments, at the discretion of the court.<br>[Section 3]. ... [E]very person guilty of ... the offences described in this act shall be forever incapable and disqualified to hold any office under the United States.<ref>{{uspl|37|195}}, {{usstat|12|589}}</ref>}}
Baude and Paulsen cite the invocation of the Insurrection Act by [[George Washington]] during the [[Whiskey Rebellion]], by [[John Adams]] during the [[Fries's Rebellion]], by [[Millard Fillmore]] during the [[Christiana Riot]], by [[Abraham Lincoln]] in the [[Presidential proclamation (United States)|presidential proclamation]] calling for [[President Lincoln's 75,000 volunteers|75,000 volunteers]] following the [[Battle of Fort Sumter]], and by [[Ulysses S. Grant]] after the [[Colfax massacre]] in 1873 and the [[Battle of Liberty Place]] in 1874, during the [[Brooks–Baxter War]] in 1874, during the [[Vicksburg massacre]] in 1875, twice in [[South Carolina]] in 1871, and during the [[Hamburg massacre]], the [[Ellenton massacre]], and the other [[South Carolina civil disturbances of 1876]] as examples of such presidential designation of civil disturbances as insurrections or rebellions.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=75–76, 87–93}} With respect to the Christiana Riot, [[Nat Turner's slave rebellion]], [[John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry]], and other riots interfering with enforcement of the [[Fugitive Slave Act of 1850]] in [[Boston]] in 1850 and 1851 and in [[Wisconsin]] in 1859, Baude and Paulsen state "These rebels and insurrectionists were fighting deeply unjust laws, but there is no question that they committed many acts of insurrection nonetheless. Rebellion for a good cause is still rebellion."{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=90–91}} Graber notes in addendum that "Legal authorities from the framing to Reconstruction insisted that insurrection or treason trials do not turn on the justice of any complaint against the laws. ... That the motive is moral rather than pecuniary is one factor that converts a riot into an insurrection."{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=42–43}}
During congressional debate on the 14th Amendment, [[List of United States senators from West Virginia|West Virginia Senator]] [[Peter G. Van Winkle]] stated in reference to Section 3, that "This is to go into our Constitution and to stand to govern future insurrection as well as the present; and I should like to have that point definitely understood",<ref>{{Cite web |date=June 4, 1866 |publisher=Congressional Globe |work=39th United States Congress |title=In Senate: June 4, 1866: Reconstruction |url=https://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/073/0000/00632941.tif |access-date=February 1, 2024 |via=The Library of Congress |page=2941 |language=en }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Portnoy|first1=Steven|date=December 29, 2023|title=What the framers said about the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause: Analysis|publisher=[[ABC News]]|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/framers-14th-amendments-disqualification-clause-analysis/story?id=105996364|access-date=January 2, 2024|archive-date=January 1, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240101184948/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/framers-14th-amendments-disqualification-clause-analysis/story?id=105996364|url-status=live}}</ref>{{sfn|Graber|2023a|p=50}} and Lynch, Vlahoplus, and Graber argue that while early drafts of Section 3 limited its application to the Civil War, the final language was broadened to include insurrection and rebellion retrospectively and prospectively due to concerns about ex-Confederates engaging in insurrection or rebellion postbellum.{{sfn|Lynch|2021|p=168}}{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=13–17}}{{sfn|Vlahoplus|2023|pp=4–6}} Conversely, Lash argues that the evidence from the drafting history of Section 3 on whether the clause was intended to apply prospectively or only to the Civil War is mixed, that Daniel Clark's proposal for Section 3 omitted reference to future rebellions, and that the public understanding of Section 3, as expressed in contemporaneous newspaper coverage and public comments made by members of Congress and state governors during the [[1866 United States elections|1866 midterm elections]], was that Section 3 applied only to the Civil War.{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=30; 37–46}}
As with whether Section 3 applies to the presidential oath of office and the Presidency, Lash concludes that it is unclear whether Section 3 applies prospectively or only to the Civil War while conceding that the clause could be read to imply the former possibility.{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=57–62}} While the CRS, Baude and Paulsen, Lynch, and Magliocca note that Congress would subsequently amend the Enforcement Act of 1870 that provided congressional enforcement for Section 3 with the [[Amnesty Act]] in 1872 and a subsequent amnesty law in 1898 in accordance with the two-thirds majority requirement of Section 3,{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=5}}{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=11–16}}{{sfn|Lynch|2021|p=178}}{{sfn|Magliocca|2021|pp=39–64}} the CRS has also noted that the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals]] held in the Section 3 lawsuit brought against [[List of United States representatives from North Carolina|North Carolina Representative]] [[Madison Cawthorn]] that the Amnesty Act applies only retrospectively and not prospectively in that only acts prior to its enactment qualify for amnesty from Section 3 disqualification and not acts subsequent to its enactment.<ref name="CRS 6-1-2022 p. 3">{{cite report|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10750 |title=The Insurrection Bar to Holding Office: Appeals Court Issues Decision on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment|last1=Lampe |first1=Joanna R. |date=June 1, 2022|publisher=Congressional Research Service |page=3 |access-date=September 24, 2023 |archive-date=June 3, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230603102358/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10750 |url-status=live }}</ref>
Based on the concurrent majorities in favor of the sole article in the second Trump impeachment in the House and the impeachment trial in the Senate, and the passage of the Congressional Gold Medals bill in August 2021, Baude and Paulsen argue that Congress has effectively designated the January 6 Capitol attack as an insurrection,{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=112–116}}<ref name="CNN 8-5-2021" /><ref name="USPL 117-32" /> while Graber argues that the January 6 Capitol attack falls within the meaning of "insurrection" within pre-14th Amendment federal and state case law.{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=42–43}} Baude and Paulsen conclude, "If the public record is accurate, the case is not even close. [Donald Trump] is no longer eligible to the office of [the] Presidency, or any other state or federal office covered by the Constitution."{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=116–122}} Graber argues that if Donald Trump's actions as described in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh central findings of the House Select January 6 Committee final report were done intentionally and knowingly in support of the January 6 Capitol attack, then his actions meet the standard for engaging in an insurrection as established by federal and state case law, and the findings are sufficient to disqualify Trump under Section 3 if those findings are proven in a hearing on the application of Section 3 to his eligibility to serve as President.{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=51–53}}<ref name="House January 6 Committee pp. 4–7" />
=== "[G]iven aid or comfort to ... enemies" ===
{{See also|United States free speech exceptions|Treason laws in the United States}}
Like Baude and Paulsen,{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|p=73}} the CRS notes that the [[Article Three of the United States Constitution#Section 3: Treason|Treason Clause of Article III, Section III]] states "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" and mirrors the language of Section 3 to describe the offenses qualifying for disqualification.{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=3}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=553}} The CRS goes on to cite the Supreme Court's rulings in ''[[Cramer v. United States]]'' (1945) and ''Haupt v. United States'' (1947) in suggesting that simple association with a person is insufficient to qualify as "giving aid or comfort" but that actions that provide even relatively minor material support does qualify.{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=4}}<ref>{{ussc|name=Cramer v. United States|volume=325|page=1|year=1945}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=Haupt v. United States|volume=330|page=631|year=1947}}</ref> Lynch notes that the Court stated in ''Cramer v. United States'' that there is "no evidence whatever that… aid and comfort was designed to encompass a narrower field than that indicated by its accepted and settled meaning" as established by the [[Treason Act 1351]].{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=170–178}}<ref>{{ussc|name=Cramer v. United States|volume=325|page=1|pin=76|year=1945}}</ref> The CRS and Baude and Paulsen cite the ''Prize Cases'' as concluding that citizens of the [[Confederate States of America]], while not foreign, qualified as "enemies" for [[law of war]] purposes,{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=4}} and Baude and Paulsen cite the Court as stating in the ''Prize Cases'' that "It is not the less a civil war, with belligerent parties in hostile array, because it may be called an 'insurrection' by one side, and the insurgents be considered as rebels or traitors."{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|p=85}}<ref>{{ussc|name=Prize Cases|volume=67|page=635|pin=669|year=1863}}</ref>
In ''[[Federalist No. 78]]'', Alexander Hamilton states:
{{blockquote|Th[e] exercise of judicial discretion, in determining between two contradictory laws, is exemplified in a familiar instance. It not uncommonly happens, that there are two statutes existing at one time, clashing in whole or in part with each other, and neither of them containing any repealing clause or expression. In such a case, it is the province of the courts to liquidate and fix their meaning and operation. So far as they can, by any fair construction, be reconciled to each other, reason and law conspire to dictate that this should be done; where this is impracticable, it becomes a matter of necessity to give effect to one, in exclusion of the other. The rule which has obtained in the courts for determining their relative validity is, that the last in order of time shall be preferred to the first. But this is a mere rule of construction, not derived from any positive law, but from the nature and reason of the thing. It is a rule not enjoined upon the courts by legislative provision, but adopted by themselves, as consonant to truth and propriety, for the direction of their conduct as interpreters of the law. They thought it reasonable, that between the interfering acts of an EQUAL authority, that which was the last indication of its will should have the preference.{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=467}}<ref>{{cite web |title=The Avalon Project – Federalist No 78|url=https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp |access-date=December 27, 2023 |website=[[Avalon Project]] |publisher=[[Yale Law School]] |place=[[New Haven, Connecticut|New Haven, CT]] |archive-date=December 25, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231225111129/https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp |url-status=live }}</ref>}}
Citing Hamilton in ''Federalist No. 78'' and the Supreme Court's rulings in ''[[Chisholm v. Georgia]]'' (1793) and ''[[Hollingsworth v. Virginia]]'' (1798) before and after the ratification of the [[Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution|11th Amendment]],<ref>{{ussc|name=Chisholm v. Georgia|volume=2|page=419|year=1793}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=Hollingsworth v. Virginia|volume=3|page=378|year=1798}}</ref>{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=560}} Baude and Paulsen argue that Section 3 supersedes or qualifies any prior constitutional provisions with which it could be in conflict and cite the [[Freedom of speech in the United States|Freedom of Speech Clause]] of the 1st Amendment specifically.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=49–61}} Baude and Paulsen also cite the text of the Ironclad Oath and the Second Confiscation Act to argue that the use of "enemies" in Section 3 refers to "enemies foreign and domestic" and that "giving aid or comfort" includes providing indirect material assistance.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=67–68}} The CRS, Baude and Paulsen, Graber, and Lynch cite the exclusion of [[John Y. Brown (politician, born 1835)|John Y. Brown]] and [[John Duncan Young]] of Kentucky by the House of Representatives in [[1866–67 United States House of Representatives elections|1867]] for oral or print speech that the House determined qualified for disqualification,{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=4}}{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=94–95}}{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=197–200}}{{sfn|Graber|2023a|p=49}} while Baude and Paulsen also cite the [[open letter]] written by Abraham Lincoln to [[List of United States representatives from New York|New York Representative]] [[Erastus Corning]] on June 12, 1863, in support of the military arrest of former [[List of United States representatives from Ohio|Ohio Representative]] [[Clement Vallandigham]] in support of their argument that Section 3 qualifies the Freedom of Speech Clause.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=76–79}} Baude and Paulsen, Graber, and Lynch cite the exclusion of former [[United States Secretary of the Treasury|Secretary of the Treasury]] [[Philip Francis Thomas]] from the Senate in [[1866–67 United States Senate elections|1867]] as an example of disqualification for "giving aid or comfort to ... enemies".{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=96–97}}{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=47–48}}{{sfn|Lynch|2021|p=201}}
The CRS, Baude and Paulsen, Graber, and Lynch also note the [[List of United States representatives expelled, censured, or reprimanded|disqualification and removal]] of [[List of United States representatives from Wisconsin|Wisconsin Representative]] [[Victor L. Berger]] from the House of Representatives in 1919 under Section 3 after being convicted of treason under the [[Espionage Act of 1917]].{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=2}}{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=60–61}}{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=16; 50}}{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=210–213}} Berger's conviction was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court in ''[[Berger v. United States]]'' (1921) and Berger was reelected and seated from 1923 to 1929.<ref>{{ussc|name=Berger v. United States|volume=255|page=22|year=1921}}</ref>{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=60–61}}{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=213–214}} Graber notes further that Berger had been charged under the Espionage Act because of his opposition to [[American entry into World War I|U.S. entry into World War I]] and had urged resistance to [[Conscription in the United States|conscription]],{{sfn|Graber|2023a|p=50}} and that in rejecting Berger's claim that Section 3 applied only to ex-Confederates, a report issued by the House of Representatives stated, "It is perfectly true that the entire [14th Amendment] was the child of the Civil War… [but it] is equally true, however, that its provisions are for all time… It is inconceivable that the House of Representatives, which without such an express provision in the Constitution repeatedly asserted its right to exclude Members-elect for disloyalty, should ignore this plain prohibition which has been contained in the fundamental law of the Nation for more than half a century."{{sfn|Graber|2023a|p=16}}{{efn|Members of the Senate and the House expelled for supporting Confederacy included:
* [[List of United States senators from Arkansas|Arkansas Senators]] [[William K. Sebastian]] and [[Charles B. Mitchel]];
* [[List of United States senators from Indiana|Indiana Senator]] [[Jesse D. Bright]];
* Kentucky Senator [[John C. Breckinridge]];
* [[List of United States representatives from Kentucky|Kentucky Representative]] [[Henry Cornelius Burnett]];
* Missouri Senators [[Trusten Polk]] and [[Waldo P. Johnson]];
* [[List of United States representatives from Missouri|Missouri Representatives]] [[John Bullock Clark]] and [[John William Reid]];
* [[List of United States senators from North Carolina|North Carolina Senators]] [[Thomas L. Clingman]] and [[Thomas Bragg]];
* [[List of United States senators from South Carolina|South Carolina Senator]] [[James Chesnut Jr.]];
* Tennessee Senator [[Alfred O. P. Nicholson]];
* [[List of United States senators from Texas|Texas Senators]] [[John Hemphill (senator)|John Hemphill]] and [[Louis Wigfall]];
* Virginia Senators [[James M. Mason]] and [[Robert M. T. Hunter]].}}
Blackman and Tillman argue that since engaging in insurrection or rebellion and giving aid or comfort to enemies are textually distinct in Section 3, that Baude and Paulsen conflate engaging in insurrection or rebellion with giving aid or comfort to enemies and in effect create "giving aid or comfort to insurrection" as a criminal offense which does not appear in the text of Section 3.{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2023|pp=155–184}} Conversely, the CRS states that while a criminal conviction for insurrection or treason under Section 2383 or 2381, respectively, of Title 18 of the [[United States Code]] would presumably be [[Necessity and sufficiency|sufficient]] for determining whether specific individuals are disqualified under Section 3,{{efn|Current text of 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection:{{blockquote|"''Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.''"<ref name="USC Title 18 Section 2383">{{usc|18|2383}}</ref>}}}}<ref name="auto">{{usc|18|2381}}</ref> the definitions of "insurrection" and "rebellion" for the purpose of Section 3 disqualification would not necessarily be confined by statute.{{sfn|Elsea|2022|pp=3–4}} Similarly, Lynch argues that conviction under Section 2383 as a necessary condition for Section 3 disqualification is not a model standard because there are no apparent cases of a defendant ever being convicted under Section 2383, and because the statute also does not include federally-recognized rebellions or insurrections against state governments.{{sfn|Lynch|2021|p=181}} Section 2383 is the codified version of Sections 2 and 3 of the Second Confiscation Act that was retained in the [[Revised Statutes of the United States]] in 1874,<ref>{{usstat|18|1036}}</ref> in a subsequent codification of federal penal statutes in 1909,<ref>{{usstat|35|1088}}</ref> and ultimately in the United States Code in 1948,<ref>{{usstat|62|808}}, {{usc|18|2383}}; Second Confiscation Act included in the ''[[United States Statutes at Large]]'' at {{usstat|12|589}}</ref> but it applies disqualification only from "offices under the United States" (i.e. federal offices) while Section 3 also applies disqualification from state offices.<ref name="USC Title 18 Section 2383" />{{efn|Section 3 states "No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State".{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=562}}}}
Likewise, Section 2381 is the codified version of Sections 1 and 3 of the Second Confiscation Act together with Section 1 of the [[Crimes Act of 1790]] that was ultimately retained through the same codifications, and it also applies disqualification only from federal offices and not from state offices.<ref>Crimes Act of 1790, {{usstat|1|112}}; Second Confiscation Act, {{usstat|12|589}}; Revised Statutes codification, {{usstat|18|1036}}; 1909 federal penal statutes codification, {{usstat|35|1088}}; U.S. Code codification, {{usstat|62|807}}</ref>{{efn|Current text of 18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason:{{blockquote|"''Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.<ref name="auto"/>}}}} In ''[[Ex parte Bollman]]'' (1807), the Supreme Court stated that "if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors."<ref>{{ussc|name=Ex parte Bollman|volume=8|page=75|pin=126|year=1807}}</ref> Citing ''Ex parte Bollman'', ''United States v. Burr'', the ''Prize Cases'',<ref>{{ussc|name=Prize Cases|volume=67|page=635|pin=673|year=1863}}</ref> ''United States v. Vigol'' (1795),<ref>{{ussc|name=United States v. Vigol|volume=2|page=346|year=1795}}</ref> ''United States v. Mitchell I'' (1795),<ref>{{ussc|name=United States v. Mitchell I|volume=2|page=348|year=1795}}</ref> and ''[[Ex parte Vallandigham]]'' (1864),<ref>{{ussc|name=Ex parte Vallandigham|volume=68|page=24|year=1864}}</ref> and surveying federal and state case law on insurrection and treason prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Graber argues that the original public meaning of "insurrection" and "treason" were understood to be any assemblage resisting a federal law by force for a public purpose,{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=24–40}} and that "engaging" in an insurrection was understood to broadly include performing any role in an attempt to obstruct the execution of a federal law.{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=44–51}} In ''[[Brandenburg v. Ohio]]'' (1969), the Supreme Court established a two-part test for speech qualifying as incitement and without protection by the 1st Amendment if that speech is:
# "directed to inciting or producing [[imminent lawless action]]"; and
# "likely to incite or produce such action".<ref>{{ussc|name=Brandenburg v. Ohio|volume=395|page=444|year=1969}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Brandenburg test – Wex – US Law|website=Legal Information Institute|publisher=Cornell Law School|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test|access-date=January 9, 2024|archive-date=July 11, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220711140412/https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite report|last=Killion|first=Victoria L.|date=January 16, 2019|title=The First Amendment: Categories of Speech|publisher=Congressional Research Service|page=2|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11072|access-date=January 9, 2024|archive-date=January 9, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240109221613/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11072|url-status=live}}</ref>
In November 2022, the [[New Mexico Supreme Court]] upheld the removal and lifetime disqualification from public office of [[Otero County, New Mexico|Otero County]] [[County commission|Board Commissioner]] [[Couy Griffin]] under Section 3 by [[Courts of New Mexico|New Mexico District Court]] Judge Francis J. Mathew the previous September after District of Columbia U.S. District Court Judge [[Trevor N. McFadden]] ruled that Griffin was guilty of [[Trespass|trespassing]] during the January 6 Capitol attack in March 2022.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Segarra|first1=Curtis|date=November 15, 2022|title=End of the road? Couy Griffin's appeal dismissed by NM Supreme Court|publisher=[[KRQE]]|url=https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/end-of-the-road-couy-griffins-appeal-dismissed-by-nm-supreme-court/|access-date=December 23, 2023|archive-date=December 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231230182106/https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/end-of-the-road-couy-griffins-appeal-dismissed-by-nm-supreme-court/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Lybrand |first1=Holmes |first2=Hannah |last2=Rabinowitz|first3=Katelyn|last3=Polantz|date=March 22, 2022 |title=Judge finds January 6 defendant guilty of trespassing on Capitol grounds|url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/22/politics/couy-griffin-verdict-january-6-trial/index.html |access-date=July 8, 2022|publisher=CNN |archive-date=June 30, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220630062502/https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/22/politics/couy-griffin-verdict-january-6-trial/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/06/politics/couy-griffin-new-mexico-january-6/index.html |title=New Mexico county commissioner removed from elected office for role in US Capitol riot|first1=Hannah|last1=Rabinowitz|first2=Holmes|last2=Lybrand|first3=Scott|last3=Bronstein |publisher=CNN |date=September 6, 2022 |access-date=December 27, 2023 |archive-date=September 25, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220925223950/https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/06/politics/couy-griffin-new-mexico-january-6/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref>{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=2}} The New Mexico Supreme Court reaffirmed its decision in February 2023.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Upchurch |first1=Marilyn |title=New Mexico Supreme Court maintains Couy Griffin office removal|url=https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/new-mexico-supreme-court-maintains-couy-griffin-office-removal/ |access-date=April 14, 2023 |publisher=KRQE |date=February 18, 2023 |archive-date=April 14, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230414204101/https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/new-mexico-supreme-court-maintains-couy-griffin-office-removal/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Griffin's appeal in March 2024.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lee |first=Morgan |last2=Riccardi |first2=Nicholas |last3=Sherman |first3=Mark |date=2024-03-18 |title=Supreme Court Rejects Appeal By Former Official Banned For Jan. 6 Insurrection |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-jan-6-official_n_65f84320e4b030e8357ac88e |access-date=2024-03-18 |website=HuffPost |language=en}}</ref>
As of December 2022, about [[Criminal proceedings in the January 6 United States Capitol attack|290 out of over 910 defendants associated with the January 6 Capitol attack]] had been charged with obstructing an official proceeding, with over 70 convicted.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Parloff |first1=Roger |date=December 8, 2022 |title=A Crucial Appeal for Capitol Riot Prosecutions: D.C. Circuit to Hear Arguments Challenging the Felony Charge Used in 290 Cases|url=https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/crucial-appeal-capitol-riot-prosecutions-dc-circuit-hear-arguments-challenging-felony-charge-used |access-date=January 26, 2023|website=[[Lawfare (website)|Lawfare]]|publisher=Brookings Institution/Lawfare Institute |language=en}}</ref> In December 2023, the Supreme Court granted a writ of ''certiorari'' in ''[[Fischer v. United States]]'' (2024) following the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|U.S. District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals]] panel ruling (with [[Florence Y. Pan]], [[Justin R. Walker]], and [[Gregory G. Katsas]] presiding) that reversed the ruling of District of Columbia U.S. District Court Judge [[Carl J. Nichols]] that obstructing an official proceeding is limited to documents tampering.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Sherman |first1=Mark |date=December 13, 2023 |title=Supreme Court will hear a case that could undo Capitol riot charge against hundreds, including Trump|url=https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab |access-date=December 13, 2023|publisher=Associated Press |language=en |archive-date=December 13, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231213144703/https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Hsu |first1=Spencer S. |last2=Jackman |first2=Tom |last3=Weiner |first3=Rachel |date=March 8, 2022 |title=U.S. judge dismisses lead federal charge against Jan. 6 Capitol riot defendant |newspaper=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/03/08/judge-tosses-jan-6-obstruction-charge/ |access-date=April 7, 2023 |archive-date=March 31, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230331085116/https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/03/08/judge-tosses-jan-6-obstruction-charge/ |url-status=live }}</ref>{{sfn|Berris|2023|pp=2–3}}<ref>{{cite report|last1=Doyle|first1=Charles|date=November 5, 2010|title=Obstruction of Congress: A Brief Overview of Federal Law Relating to Interference with Congressional Activities|publisher=Congressional Research Service|pages=15–18|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL34304|access-date=December 27, 2023|archive-date=December 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231230182129/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL34304|url-status=live}}</ref>
=== Enforcement of Section 3 ===
==== Self-executing or congressional enforcement ====
{{see also|United States presidential eligibility legislation|Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation}}
In its September 2022 report on Section 3, the CRS states that it is unclear whether Section 3 is "self-executing", that Section 3 does not establish a procedure for determining whether specific persons are disqualified under its terms, and that Congress has not passed legislation for creating such a procedure.{{sfn|Elsea|2022|pp=3–4}} The [[Supremacy Clause]] of Article VI states that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=555}} Citing the Supremacy Clause, Baude and Paulsen argue that Section 3 is "legally self-executing" in that it does not require additional legislation to effectuate it and make it legally operative.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=17–35}} In arguing its terms are legally self-executing, Baude and Paulsen compare the text of Section 3 to the text of the [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 2: Qualifications of Members|House Qualifications Clause of Article I, Section II]],{{efn|Under Article I, Section II, "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=543}}}} the [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 3: Qualifications of senators|Senate Qualifications Clause of Article I, Section III]],{{efn|Under Article I, Section III, "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=544}}}} and the [[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 5: Qualifications for office|Presidential Qualifications Clause of Article II, Section I]],{{efn|Under Article II, Section I, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=550–551}}}} in noting that none of the clauses include a [[Enumerated powers (United States)|delegation of power]] to any organ of the government for their enforcement.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=17–18}} The [[Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution|22nd Amendment]] also does not delegate power to any organ of the government for its [[Congressional power of enforcement|enforcement]].{{efn|The 22nd Amendment states, "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=565–566}}
In contrast, Baude and Paulsen note that in comparison to the language of Section 3, the Impeachment Power Clause of Article I, Section II,{{efn|Under Article I, Section II, "The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=543}}}} the [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 6: Trial of impeachment|Impeachment Trial Clause of Article I, Section III]],{{efn|Under Article I, Section III, "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=544}}}} the Impeachment Disqualification Clause of Article I, Section III,{{efn|Under Article I, Section III, "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=544}}}} the Impeachment Clause of Article II, Section IV,{{efn|Under Article II, Section IV, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=552}}}} and the Treason Clause of Article III, Section III,{{efn|Under the Treason Clause of Article III, Section III:{{blockquote|Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.<br><br>The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=553}}}}}} define their offenses or specify the organs of the government responsible for their enforcement, while Section 3 neither defines its offenses nor specifies which organs of the government must enforce it but provides disqualification to specific persons itself.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=20–21}} While Baude and Paulsen acknowledge the ruling in ''Griffin's Case'' (1869) presided over by Chief Justice [[Salmon P. Chase]] as the Circuit Justice of Virginia where Chase ruled that Section 3 was not self-executing, Baude and Paulsen argue that it was wrongly decided.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=35–49}} In ''Griffin's Case'', a black man named Caesar Griffin was tried and convicted in a case presided over by [[Hugh White Sheffey]], whom Griffin's attorney argued was disqualified from serving as a state judge under Section 3 as Sheffey had served as the [[List of speakers of the Virginia House of Delegates|Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates]] under the Confederacy.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=35–36}} Blackman and Tillman dispute Baude and Paulsen's interpretation of ''Griffin's Case'', arguing that they apply frameworks of judicial interpretation developed decades after the case to reject it and effectively misconstrue the decision.{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2023|pp=53–133}}
Blackman and Tillman argue further that the second treason indictment of Jefferson Davis (which was also presided over by Chase as Circuit Justice of Virginia) is not in tension with ''Griffin's Case'' and conclude that the decision in the cases when taken together lead to the conclusion that Section 3 is not self-executing.{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2023|pp=133–155}} Conversely, Gerard Magliocca argues that the two decisions are nearly impossible to reconcile since in the case of Jefferson Davis, which occurred months before ''Griffin's Case'', Chase had concluded that Section 3 was self-executing.{{sfn|Magliocca|2021|pp=20–21}} Nearly a month after the surrender of the [[Army of Northern Virginia]] by [[General in Chief of the Armies of the Confederate States|Confederate General-in-Chief]] [[Robert E. Lee]] following the [[Battle of Appomattox Court House]], Davis was captured in [[Irwinville, Georgia]] on May 10, 1865, and imprisoned at [[Fort Monroe]] in [[Virginia]], but would be not indicted for treason until May 1866 by [[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia#United States Attorneys|Eastern Virginia U.S. Attorney]] Lucius H. Chandler.{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=20–21; 164}} In January 1866, Attorney General [[James Speed]] issued an official legal opinion at the request of Congress that concluded that Davis could only be tried for treason in a civil trial rather than a military tribunal and, in accordance with Article III, Section II, only in [[Virginia in the American Civil War|Virginia where Davis had led the Confederacy in the Civil War]] since the Confederate capitol was located in [[Richmond, Virginia|Richmond]].{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=137–152}}{{efn|Article III, Section II requires that "Trial of all Crimes... shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=553}}}}
However, the prosecution was unwilling to try Davis without the presence of Chase as Chief Justice, but Chase declared that he was unwilling to preside over the case because, despite President Andrew Johnson [[Conclusion of the American Civil War#Proclamations|issuing two presidential proclamations in 1866 declaring that the organized resistance to federal authority had ceased]], Virginia remained under [[Martial law in the United States|martial law]] at the time as an [[Reconstruction Acts|unreconstructed state]] and he did not wish to make a decision that could be overruled by the military.{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=164–171; 195–198}} Congress had also passed the [[Judicial Circuits Act]] which reduced the total number of federal judicial circuits and altered their geographical boundaries including Chase's circuit, and because the law did not specify how the Supreme Court justices would subsequently be assigned, Chase argued that he and the other justices should refuse to carry out circuit duty until Congress amended the law to specify assignments.{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=198–199}} In response, Johnson directed Attorney General Henry Stanbery in October 1866 to review what actions Johnson could take to resolve the jurisdiction issue, but Stanbery concluded that the Supreme Court itself could assign the circuits and that Chase was citing technical issues as excuses to not preside over the trial.{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=199–200}} After Congress passed an amendment to the Judicial Circuits Act in March 1867 that ordered the Supreme Court to make the assignments, Chase cited a lack of preparation on the part of the prosecution and continuances requested by the government for his not presiding over the trial, as well as his workload as Chief Justice and concerns about his personal safety in Virginia (despite his presiding over the circuit court in North Carolina during the same time period).{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=200–201}}
Conversely, as the indictment was receiving extensive newspaper coverage throughout the country at the time,{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=153–164; 308–309}} multiple Johnson administration officials, former [[United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York|Southern New York U.S. Attorney]] [[Charles O'Conor (American politician)|Charles O'Conor]] (who served as the lead defense counsel for Davis), and historians have suggested that Chase had presidential ambitions that Chase did not want to risk by presiding over the case.{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=193–194; 201}} Chase's refusal to preside effectively led to the 1866 indictment being [[Motion to quash|quashed]].{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=164–171}} Davis remained imprisoned at Fort Monroe until he was released on bail in May 1867, and was relinquished by the military commander at Fort Monroe into civil custody under a writ of ''[[habeas corpus]]''.{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|p=280}} In November 1867, a grand jury heard testimony against Davis for a second treason indictment, and the grand jury issued the second indictment in March 1868.{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=266–270}} After refusing to consult with Johnson on the indictment and as he sought the presidential nomination at the [[1868 Democratic National Convention]],{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=192–195; 293}} Chase shared his view on Section 3 with Davis' attorneys privately that the clause was self-executing.{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=204; 294–296}} In November 1868, Davis' attorneys filed a [[Motion (legal)#To dismiss|motion to dismiss]] the indictment on the basis that Section 3 was self-executing.{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|p=296}} As Davis had served as a Representative and [[List of United States senators from Mississippi|Senator from Mississippi]] and [[United States Secretary of War|U.S. Secretary of War]] during the [[Presidency of Franklin Pierce|Franklin Pierce administration]] before serving as the president of the Confederate States, his attorneys argued that Section 3 precluded the treason indictment and would violate the principle of [[double jeopardy]] (making the indictment unconstitutional), while the prosecution argued that Section 3 did not provide a criminal punishment and was not applicable in the case.{{sfn|Magliocca|2021|pp=21–24}}{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=296–299}}
After Chase and [[List of former United States district courts#Virginia|Virginia U.S. District Court]] Judge [[John Curtiss Underwood]] split on the motion to dismiss (with Chase voting in favor of the motion and Underwood voting to sustain the indictment), the case was granted a writ of ''certiorari'' by the Supreme Court but was ultimately rendered moot when Johnson granted [[pardons for ex-Confederates]] including Davis in December 1868, and the prosecution formally withdrew the indictment in the early months of the next year.{{sfn|Magliocca|2021|p=24}}{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=299–300}} While initially wanting Davis to be tried for treason since there was no evidence to implicate Davis in the [[assassination of Abraham Lincoln]] or the treatment of [[Union Army]] soldiers as [[Prisoner of war|prisoners of war]] at [[Andersonville Prison]] in Georgia,{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=32–38}} Johnson and [[Presidency of Andrew Johnson#Administration|his Cabinet]] decided that granting Davis a pardon was the best course of action due to their surprise that the Supreme Court issued the writ of ''certiorari'' and at Chase's sympathy towards the defense counsel's motion,{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|p=299}} as well as the concern that an acquittal of Davis would constitutionally validate secession.{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=6–7; 266–276}} Despite the pardon, Congress would not remove the Section 3 disqualification from Davis until 1978 when it also restored his citizenship posthumously.{{sfn|Magliocca|2021|pp=2; 64–68}}{{sfn|Vlahoplus|2023|p=10}} Under [[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 1: Command of military; Opinions of cabinet secretaries; Pardons|Article II, Section II]], "The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States".{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=551}}
While the Supreme Court had held in ''[[Ex parte Garland]]'' (1867) that a full [[Federal pardons in the United States|presidential pardon]] "releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt... as if [the offender] had never committed the offence... [and if] granted before conviction... prevents any of the penalties and disabilities... upon conviction from attaching",<ref>{{ussc|name=Ex parte Garland|volume=71|page=333|pin=380–381|year=1867}}</ref> the Supreme Court subsequently held in ''[[Burdick v. United States]]'' (1915) that a pardon "carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it."<ref>{{ussc|name=Burdick v. United States|volume=236|page=79|pin=94|year=1915}}</ref><ref>{{cite report|last1=Foster|first1=Michael A.|date=January 14, 2020|title=Presidential Pardons: Overview and Selected Legal Issues|publisher=Congressional Research Service|pages=11–13|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46179|access-date=January 3, 2024|archive-date=October 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231030111631/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46179|url-status=live}}</ref> Chase and Underwood would likewise differ over whether Section 3 was self-executing in ''Griffin's Case'', with Chase arguing that Section 3 was not and Underwood arguing that Section 3 was.{{sfn|Magliocca|2021|pp=24–29}} Lynch and Graber note that Hugh White Sheffey's attorney had conceded Section 3 disqualification ''[[arguendo]]'', but rejected an ''ex proprio vigore'' interpretation of Section 3 (i.e. disqualification without [[due process]]) with which Chase agreed.{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=203–206}}{{sfn|Graber|2023a|p=11}} During congressional debate on Section 3, Pennsylvania Representative Thaddeus Stevens stated that "[I]f this amendment prevails, you must legislate to carry out many parts of it. ... It will not execute itself, but as soon as it becomes a law, Congress at the next session will legislate to carry it out both in reference to the presidential and all other elections as we have a right to do."<ref>{{Cite web |date=May 10, 1866 |publisher=Congressional Globe |work=39th United States Congress |title=In Senate: May 10, 1866: Reconstruction |url= https://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/072/0600/06262544.tif|access-date=February 7, 2024 |via=The Library of Congress |page= 2544 |language=en }}</ref>{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=27–28}} In his remarks in the final house debate, Stevens reiterated, "I see no hope of safety [except] in the prescription of proper enabling acts".<ref name="Congressional Globe 6-13-1866" />{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=38–39}}
Citing Stevens and remarks made by [[List of United States senators from Illinois|Illinois Senator]] [[Lyman Trumbull]] in congressional debate on the Enforcement Act of 1870, Lash argues that many members of Congress during the drafting history of Section 3 believed that the clause required enabling legislation.{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=50–51; 55–56}} Lash also cites the Military Reconstruction Acts as evidence of how Section 3 required congressional enforcement legislation for the Electoral College.{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=54–55}} Also citing ''Griffin's Case'',{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=55–56}} Lash concludes, as with whether Section 3 applies to the presidential oath of office and to holding the Presidency and post-Civil War insurrections and rebellions, that it is unclear whether Section 3 is self-executing considering that it was interpreted both ways during its drafting, ratification, and contemporaneous effectuation.{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=57–62}} Magliocca argues that Chase's argument against Section 3 being self-executing in ''Griffin's Case'' is not persuasive primarily due to Chase's reversal between the two cases and because there is no evidence that when Congress drafted the 14th Amendment that Congress viewed Section 3 as requiring enforcement legislation, and Magliocca argues further that Underwood's positions in the two cases was more consistent and faithful to the text.{{sfn|Magliocca|2021|pp=29–34}} Likewise, Graber argues that there is no evidence from congressional debate during the drafting of the 14th Amendment that members of Congress thought that Section 3 was not self-executing, and Graber goes on to state that state governments enacted their own enforcement legislation for Section 3 and held persons disqualified under its terms in the absence of federal enforcement legislation and that Congress did nothing to reverse the decisions.{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=7–12}}
Graber states that Chase's opinion in ''Griffin's Case'' is the only counterexample following the ratification of the 14th Amendment of a court or legislative proceeding concluding that Section 3 was not self-executing, and that since state government Section 3 disqualification proceedings continued without congressional enforcement legislation after ''Griffin's Case'' was decided, Graber argues that ''Griffin's Case'' is not persuasive evidence against the original public understanding of Section 3 as being self-executing and agrees with Magliocca that Chase's reversal between the Jefferson Davis treason indictment and ''Griffin's Case'' casts doubt on the validity of Chase's arguments in the two cases.{{sfn|Graber|2023a|p=11}} While noting the Court's opinions in ''Durousseau v. United States'' (1810) and ''[[Ex parte McCardle]]'' (1869),<ref>{{ussc|name=Durousseau v. United States|volume=10|page=307|year=1810}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=Ex parte McCardle|volume=74|page=506|year=1869}}</ref>{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2023|pp=20–22}} Blackman and Tillman argue that, as an analogue to Section 3, the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction under the Appellate Jurisdiction Clause is not clearly self-executing citing ''Wiscart v. D'Auchy'' (1796),<ref>{{ussc|name=Wiscart v. D'Auchy|volume=3|page=321|year=1796}}</ref> ''[[Turner v. Bank of North America]]'' (1799),<ref>{{ussc|name=Turner v. Bank of North America|volume=4|page=8|year=1799}}</ref> ''Barry v. Mercein'' (1847),<ref>{{ussc|name=Barry v. Mercein|volume=46|page=103|year=1847}}</ref> ''Daniels v. Railroad Company'' (1865),<ref>{{ussc|name=Daniels v. Railroad Co.|volume=70|page=250|year=1865}}</ref> and ''The Francis Wright'' (1881);<ref>{{ussc|name=The Francis Wright|volume=105|page=381|year=1881}}</ref> and, citing the CRS as suggesting that the prevailing opinion among legal scholars today is that the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction is not self-executing, Blackman and Tillman also claim that the issue of whether or not it is remains a matter of debate.{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2023|pp=22–26}}
Noting that, despite the age requirements for membership in Article I, the House of Representatives chose to seat [[List of United States representatives from Tennessee|Tennessee Representative]] [[William C. C. Claiborne]] for the [[5th United States Congress]], that the Senate chose to seat [[List of United States senators from Kentucky|Kentucky Senator]] [[Henry Clay]] for the [[9th United States Congress]], [[List of United States senators from Virginia|Virginia Senator]] [[Armistead Thomson Mason]] for the [[14th United States Congress]], and Tennessee Senator [[John Eaton (politician)|John Eaton]] for the [[15th United States Congress]], and that the Senate dismissed a complaint brought by incumbent West Virginia Senator [[Henry D. Hatfield]] following the [[1934 United States Senate elections|1934 Senate elections]] to not seat [[Rush Holt Sr.]] for the [[74th United States Congress]], Blackman and Tillman argue that the Article I membership qualifications have been enforced by Congress in a discretionary manner rather than a self-executing one.{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2023|pp=27–31}} Blackman and Tillman also note that the House of Representatives had seated Victor L. Berger for the [[66th United States Congress]] despite his conviction under the Espionage Act in February 1919 and did not remove him from his seat under Section 3 until the following November,{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2023|pp=31–34}} and that Clay, Mason, and Eaton were chosen by state legislatures—whose members were bound by the Oath or Affirmation Clause and the Supremacy Clause—in indirect elections prior to the ratification of the 17th Amendment as additional examples that demonstrate that Article I qualifications are enforced by discretion and are not self-executing.{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2023|pp=34–36}}
Similarly, historian [[David T. Beito]] has noted that while [[Eugene V. Debs]] had served as a member of the [[Indiana House of Representatives]] and was later convicted under the [[Sedition Act of 1918]], Debs still appeared on the ballot in at least 40 states as the [[Socialist Party of America|Socialist Party]] presidential nominee in the [[1920 United States presidential election|1920 presidential election]].<ref>{{Cite web|last1=Beito|first1=David T.|date=September 1, 2023|title=The Fourteenth Amendment Case Against Trump Disregards Both History and Precedent|publisher=[[Independent Institute]]|url=https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14659|access-date=December 28, 2023|archive-date=December 21, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231221231049/https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14659|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Southwick">{{cite book|last1=Southwick|first1=Leslie H.|author-link=Leslie H. Southwick|year=2008|orig-year=1998|title=Presidential Also-Rans and Running Mates, 1788 through 1996: Volume 2|place=[[Jefferson, North Carolina|Jefferson, NC]]|publisher=[[McFarland & Company]]|edition=2nd|pages=451–452; 493–494|isbn=978-0786438914}}</ref> Also in contrast to Berger, Debs' conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court in ''[[Debs v. United States]]'' (1919).<ref>{{ussc|name=Debs v. United States|volume=249|page=211|year=1919}}</ref><ref name="Southwick" /> Conversely, Baude and Paulsen argue that the problem of enforcement while real is a [[Formal fallacy|non-sequitur]] from the question of whether Section 3 is self-executing because "...the meaning of the Constitution comes first. Officials must enforce the Constitution because it is law; it is wrong to think that it only becomes law if they decide to enforce it."{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|p=22}} Blackman and Tillman cite the ''[[Slaughter-House Cases]]'' (1873),<ref>{{ussc|name=Slaughter-House Cases|volume=83|page=36|year=1873}}</ref> ''[[Bradwell v. Illinois]]'' (1873),<ref>{{ussc|name=Bradwell v. Illinois|volume=83|page=130|year=1873}}</ref> ''[[United States v. Cruikshank]]'' (1876),<ref>{{ussc|name=United States v. Cruikshank|volume=92|page=542|year=1876}}</ref> ''[[Plessy v. Ferguson]]'' (1896),<ref>{{ussc|name=Plessy v. Ferguson|volume=163|page=537|year=1896}}</ref> ''[[Ex parte Young]]'' (1908),<ref>{{ussc|name=Ex parte Young|volume=209|page=123|year=1908}}</ref> and ''[[Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents]]'' (1971) in arguing that [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Section 1: Citizenship and civil rights|Section 1 of the 14th Amendment]] is only self-executing where there is federal enforcement legislation for an applicant seeking affirmative relief in a [[cause of action]] under the section or as a defense in litigation or prosecution against an enforcement action,<ref>{{ussc|name=Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents|volume=403|page=388|year=1971}}</ref> and Blackman and Tillman argue that Baude and Paulsen fail to account for this dichotomy in arguing that Section 1 is self-executing.{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2023|pp=38–53}}{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|p=19}}
Blackman and Tillman also claim that the plaintiffs in ''[[Shelley v. Kraemer]]'' (1948),<ref>{{ussc|name=Shelley v. Kraemer|volume=334|page=1|year=1948}}</ref> ''[[Brown v. Board of Education]]'' (1954),<ref name="Brown v. Board of Education">{{ussc|name=Brown v. Board of Education|volume=347|page=483|year=1954}}</ref> ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' (1973),<ref name="Roe v. Wade">{{ussc|name=Roe v. Wade|volume=410|page=113|year=1973}}</ref> and ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'' (2015) invoked the [[Second Enforcement Act|Second Enforcement Act of 1871]] as codified in Section 1983 of [[Title 42 of the United States Code]] for relief as examples.<ref name="Obergefell v. Hodges">{{ussc|name=Obergefell v. Hodges|volume=576|page=644|year=2015}}</ref>{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2023|pp=39; 46}}<ref>{{usc|42|1983}}, {{usstat|16|433}}</ref>{{efn|However, the text of ''Brown v. Board of Education'', ''Roe v. Wade'', and ''Obergefell v. Hodges'' make no reference to Section 1983 or the Second Enforcement Act,<ref name="Brown v. Board of Education" /><ref name="Roe v. Wade" /><ref name="Obergefell v. Hodges" /> and ''Shelley v. Kraemer'' refers only to the Enforcement Act of 1870 in a footnote that explains that Section 18 of the 1870 law reenacted the [[Civil Rights Act of 1866]].<ref>{{ussc|name=Shelley v. Kraemer|volume=334|page=1|pin=11|year=1948}}</ref><ref>{{usstat|16|140}}</ref>}} Conversely, Magliocca agrees with Baude and Paulsen that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is self-executing,{{sfn|Magliocca|2021|p=30}} and Graber argues that there is no evidence from congressional debate during the drafting of the 14th Amendment that members of Congress thought that any provision of the 14th Amendment was not self-executing.{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=7–12}} Noting that the House chose to seat Berger from 1923 until 1929 without an amnesty resolution passed with a two-thirds majority as required by Section 3 and citing ''Ex parte Virginia'' (1880) and ''[[City of Boerne v. Flores]]'' (1997),{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=213–214}}<ref>{{ussc|name=Ex parte Virginia|volume=100|page=339|pin=345|year=1880}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=City of Boerne v. Flores|volume=521|page=507|year=1997}}</ref> Lynch argues that subsequent to ''Griffin's Case'' that the 14th Amendment as a whole was reconceptualized as being primarily judicially enforceable rather than congressionally enforceable.{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=206–207}} In the ''[[Civil Rights Cases]]'' (1883), the Supreme Court stated that "the [14th Amendment] is undoubtedly self-executing, without any ancillary legislation, so far as its terms are applicable to any existing state of circumstances."<ref>{{ussc|name=Civil Rights Cases|volume=109|page=3|pin=20|year=1883}}</ref>
==== Civil action or criminal conviction ====
The CRS notes that the text of Section 3 does not explicitly require a criminal conviction for disqualification and that ex-Confederate officials disqualified during [[Reconstruction era|Reconstruction]] were instead barred by [[Civil procedure in the United States|civil actions]] brought by [[United States Attorney|federal prosecutors]] or by Congress refusing to seat elected ex-Confederate candidates for Congress under the [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 1: Electoral judgement; Quorum|Electoral Judgement Clause of Article I, Section V]],{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=2}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=545}} while Lynch notes that Section 3 challenges for an incumbent member of Congress would occur under the [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 2: Rules|Expulsion Clause of Article I, Section V]].{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=194–195}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=545}} Referencing the exclusion of Victor L. Berger by the House of Representatives in 1919, the expulsions of members of Congress during the Civil War for supporting the Confederacy, and the exclusions of members-elect under Section 3 during Reconstruction,<ref>{{ussc|name=Powell v. McCormack|volume=395|page=486|pin=544–545|year=1969}}</ref> the Supreme Court held in ''[[Powell v. McCormack]]'' (1969) that Congress may only exclude duly-elected members under qualifications that are constitutionally prescribed and that the controversy presented was not a political question.<ref>{{ussc|name=Powell v. McCormack|volume=395|page=486|pin=518–550|year=1969}}</ref><ref name="CRS 8-12-2002">{{cite report|url=https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL31532.pdf |title=Congressional Candidacy, Incarceration, and the Constitution's Inhabitancy Qualification |last1=Maskell |first1=Jack |date=August 12, 2002 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |page=3 |access-date=October 11, 2023 |website=Federation of American Scientists |archive-date=December 8, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231208222400/https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL31532.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> During the drafting of the 14th Amendment, West Virginia Senator [[Waitman T. Willey]] stated that the Section 3 disqualification was:
{{blockquote|text=not…penal in its character, it is precautionary. It looks not to the past, but it has reference, as I understand it, wholly to the future. It is a measure of self-defense. It is designed to prevent a repetition of treason by these men, and being a permanent provision of the Constitution, it is intended to operate as a preventive of treason hereafter by holding out to the people of the United States that such will the penalty of the offense if they dare commit it. It is therefore not a measure of punishment, but a measure of self-defense.<ref>{{Cite web |date=May 31, 1866 |publisher=Congressional Globe |work=39th United States Congress |title=In Senate: May 31, 1866: Reconstruction |url=https://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/073/0000/00402918.tif |access-date=February 1, 2024 |via=The Library of Congress |page= 2918 |language=en }}</ref>}}
Likewise, Maine Senator Lot M. Morrill stated that there is "an obvious distinction between the penalty which the State affixes to a crime and that disability which the state imposes and has the right to impose against persons whom it does not choose to [e]ntrust with official station",<ref>{{Cite web |date=May 31, 1866 |publisher=Congressional Globe |work=39th United States Congress |title=In Senate: May 31, 1866: Reconstruction |url= https://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/073/0000/00382916.tif |access-date=February 1, 2024 |via=The Library of Congress |page= 2916 |language=en }}</ref> while [[List of United States senators from Missouri|Missouri Senator]] [[John B. Henderson]] stated that Section 3 "is an act fixing the qualifications of officers and not an act for the punishment of crime. … [P]unishment means to take away life, liberty, or property."<ref>{{Cite web |date=June 8, 1866 |publisher=Congressional Globe |work=39th United States Congress |title=In Senate: June 8, 1866: Reconstruction |url= https://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/073/0100/01583036.tif|access-date=February 1, 2024 |via=The Library of Congress |page= 3036 |language=en }}</ref> Citing Morrill, Henderson, and Willey, Graber argues that most members of Congress during the 39th United States Congress understood Section 3 to be a qualification for public office and not a punishment for a criminal offense.{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=12–13}} While the CRS notes that there is debate among legal scholars about whether Congress has the authority to pass legislation to name specific individuals disqualified under Section 3 due to the [[Bill of attainder#United States|Bill of Attainder Clause]] of Article I, Section IX,{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=5}} Baude and Paulsen argue that Section 3 qualifies the clause as well as the Bill of Attainder Clause of [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Section 10: Limits on the States|Article I, Section X]] and the [[Ex post facto law#United States|''Ex post facto'' Law Clauses]] of Article I, Section IX and Section X and the [[Due Process Clause]] of the 5th Amendment along with the Freedom of Speech Clause.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=49–61}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=548–549}} The Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment states that "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=559}}
Noting the text of the Due Process Clause and citing the Supreme Court in ''[[Taylor v. Beckham]]'' (1900) as stating that "The decisions are numerous to the effect that public offices are mere agencies or trusts, and not property as such",<ref>{{ussc|name=Taylor v. Beckham|volume=178|page=548|pin=577|year=1900}}</ref> Baude and Paulsen argue that holding public office in the United States—as it is a [[republic]] rather than a [[constitutional monarchy]] like the [[United Kingdom]] with [[hereditary peer]]age—is a public privilege and [[public trust]] and not clearly a form of "life, liberty, or property" to which persons have a personal or private right protected from deprivation by due process.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=56–57}}{{efn|While the [[House of Lords Act 1999]] abolished hereditary membership in the [[House of Lords]] for most seats, [[List of hereditary peers elected under the House of Lords Act 1999|92 seats were exempted]] for members chosen in [[By-elections to the House of Lords|by-elections]] and the holders of the [[Earl Marshal]] and [[Lord Great Chamberlain]] offices being permitted to sit ''[[Ex officio member|ex officio]]'', and the remaining seats are held by [[life peer]]s appointed by the [[Monarchy of the United Kingdom|Crown]].<ref>{{cite web|title=House of Lords Act 1999|website=[[legislation.gov.uk]]|publisher=[[The National Archives (United Kingdom)|The National Archives]]|url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/34/enacted|access-date=January 16, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Standing Orders of the House of Lords – Public Business|date=February 22, 2021|website=parliament.uk|publisher=[[Parliament of the United Kingdom]]|pages=3–4|url=https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/publications-records/House-of-Lords-Publications/Rules-guides-for-business/Standing-order-public-business/Standing-Orders-Public.pdf|access-date=January 16, 2024}}</ref>}} The Foreign Emoluments Clause states that "No [[Nobility|Title of Nobility]] shall be granted by the United States",<ref name="CRS 1-27-2021" />{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=549}} while the [[Contract Clause]] of Article I, Section X provides that "No State shall … grant any Title of Nobility."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=549}} In ''[[Snowden v. Hughes]]'' (1944), the Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding in ''Taylor v. Beckham'' that holding a state office is not a right of property or liberty secured by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and being a candidate for state office is not a right or privilege protected by the [[Privileges and Immunities Clause]] of [[Article Four of the United States Constitution#Section 2: Rights of state citizens; rights of extradition|Article IV, Section II]].{{sfn|Amado|2022|p=19}}<ref>{{ussc|name=Snowden v. Hughes|volume=321|page=1|pin=7|year=1944}}</ref>{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=554; 561}} Baude and Paulsen also note that the Supreme Court in ''Ex parte Garland'' and ''Cummings v. Missouri'' (1867) explicitly distinguished the criminal punishments in bills of attainder and ''ex post facto'' laws from constitutional qualifications for public office.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=53–54}}<ref>{{ussc|name=Ex parte Garland|volume=71|page=333|pin=378|year=1867}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=Cummings v. Missouri|volume=71|page=277|pin=319|year=1867}}</ref>
While the [[Double Jeopardy Clause]] of the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|5th Amendment]] states that "No person... shall... be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb",{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=559}} the Impeachment Disqualification Clause states that "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification... but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=544}} Noting that the scope of [[high crimes and misdemeanors]] in the Impeachment Clause of Article II, Section IV in practice has not been limited to criminal offenses,{{sfn|Cole|Garvey|2023|pp=7–9; 42–43}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=552}} the CRS notes that the text of the Impeachment Disqualification Clause establishes that disqualification from public office by conviction in an impeachment trial is constitutionally distinct from a punishment levied for conviction in a criminal trial.{{sfn|Cole|Garvey|2023|pp=14–15}} While the Supreme Court held in ''[[Nixon v. United States]]'' (1993) that whether the Senate had properly tried an impeachment trial under the Impeachment Trial Clause was a political question,<ref>{{cite report|last1=Lampe|first1=Joanna R.|date=June 14, 2022|title=The Political Question Doctrine: Congressional Governance and Impeachment as Political Questions (Part 5)|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10760|access-date=December 27, 2023|archive-date=March 7, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230307045628/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10760|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=Nixon v. United States|volume=506|page=224|year=1993}}</ref>{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=544}} the OLC issued an opinion in 2000 that concluded that it is constitutional to indict and try a former president for the same offenses for which the President was impeached by the House of Representatives and acquitted by the Senate.<ref>{{cite report|last=Moss|first=Randolph D.|author-link=Randolph Moss|date=August 18, 2000|title=Whether a Former President May Be Indicted and Tried for the Same Offenses for Which He Was Impeached by the House and Acquitted by the Senate|publisher=Office of Legal Counsel|volume=24, Opinions|pages=110–155|url=https://www.justice.gov/d9/olc/opinions/2000/08/31/op-olc-v024-p0110_0.pdf|access-date=January 3, 2024|archive-date=December 17, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231217060425/https://www.justice.gov/d9/olc/opinions/2000/08/31/op-olc-v024-p0110_0.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>
In ''[[Federalist No. 65]]'', Alexander Hamilton notes that the power to conduct impeachment trials is delegated to the Senate rather than the Supreme Court to preclude the possibility of double jeopardy because of the language in the Impeachment Disqualification Clause,<ref>{{cite news|last1=Taylor|first1=Jessica|date=November 18, 2019|title=Fractured Into Factions? What The Founders Feared About Impeachment|publisher=NPR|url=https://www.npr.org/2019/11/18/779938819/fractured-into-factions-what-the-founders-feared-about-impeachment|access-date=June 14, 2022|archive-date=May 29, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220529040411/https://www.npr.org/2019/11/18/779938819/fractured-into-factions-what-the-founders-feared-about-impeachment|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Chernow|first1=Ron|author-link=Ron Chernow|date=October 18, 2019|title=Hamilton pushed for impeachment powers. Trump is what he had in mind.|newspaper=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/10/18/hamilton-pushed-impeachment-powers-trump-is-what-he-had-mind/|access-date=June 16, 2022|archive-date=February 12, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220212022753/https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/10/18/hamilton-pushed-impeachment-powers-trump-is-what-he-had-mind/|url-status=live}}</ref> stating "Would it be proper that the persons who had disposed [impeached officials of their] fame... in one trial, should, in another trial, for the same offense, be also the disposers of [their] life and ... fortune? Would there not be the greatest reason to apprehend, that error, in the first sentence, would be the parent of error in the second sentence? ... [By] making the same persons judges in both cases, [impeached officials] would... be deprived of the double security intended them by a double trial."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=394–399}}<ref>{{cite web |title=The Avalon Project – Federalist No 65|url=https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp |access-date=December 27, 2023 |website=[[Avalon Project]] |publisher=[[Yale Law School]] |place=[[New Haven, Connecticut|New Haven, CT]] |archive-date=December 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231230182106/https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp |url-status=live }}</ref>{{sfn|Cole|Garvey|2023|pp=14–15}} Along with Magliocca and the CRS, Baude and Paulsen note that following Chase's rulings in the Jefferson Davis treason indictment and ''Griffin's Case'' that Congress passed the Enforcement Act of 1870 to effectuate Section 3 by permitting federal prosecutors to issue writs of ''[[quo warranto]]'' for its enforcement,{{sfn|Elsea|2022|pp=4–5}}{{sfn|Magliocca|2021|pp=3; 34–38}} and Baude and Paulsen also note that the Military Reconstruction Act of 1867 also incorporated the text that would ultimately be included in Section 3.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=100–104}}
Subsequently codified in the Revised Statutes of the United States,<ref>{{usstat|18|317}}</ref> Section 14 of the Enforcement Act of 1870 provided that:
{{blockquote|... whenever any person shall hold office, except as a member of Congress or of some State legislature, contrary to the provisions of [Section 3 of the 14th Amendment], it shall be the duty of the district attorney of the United States for the district in which such person shall hold office, as aforesaid, to proceed against such person, by writ of quo warranto, returnable to the circuit or district court of the United States in such district, and to prosecute the same to the removal of such person from office...<ref>{{usstat|16|143}}</ref>}}
While Lynch notes that Section 14 of the Enforcement Act of 1870 was repealed during the codification of the United States Code in 1948,{{sfn|Lynch|2021|p=206}}<ref>{{usstat|62|993}}</ref> the CRS suggests that private parties can still request that a federal judge issue a writ of ''quo warranto'' for Section 3 disqualification under Rule 81 of the [[Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]] (which were created under the [[Rules Enabling Act]] in 1934).{{sfn|Elsea|2022|pp=4–5}}<ref name="CRS 5-22-2020">{{cite report|last=Lampe|first=Joanna R.|date=May 22, 2020|title=Congress, the Judiciary, and Civil and Criminal Procedure|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11557|access-date=January 12, 2024}}</ref><ref name="Fed. R. Civ. P. R 81">Fed. R. Civ. P. R {{frcp|81}}</ref> Similarly, Lynch argues that state officeholders may be removed under Section 3 under writs of ''quo warranto'',{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=187–188}} and Baude and Paulsen note that the disqualification of Couy Griffin occurred by a ''quo warranto'' lawsuit under state law.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=27–29}} Other legal commentators have argued that Griffin's disqualification has established a precedent to bar Trump from office.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Murray |first1=Isabella |date=September 8, 2022 |title=Judge removes local official for engaging in Jan. 6 'insurrection'|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-removes-local-official-engaging-jan-insurrection/story?id=89463597 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221118231459/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-removes-local-official-engaging-jan-insurrection/story?id=89463597|archive-date=November 18, 2022 |access-date=November 18, 2022 |website=ABC News}}</ref> Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in ''Newman v. United States ex rel. Frizzell'' (1915) that upheld a ''quo warranto'' removal under the [[Code of the District of Columbia|District of Columbia Code]],<ref>{{ussc|name=Newman v. United States ex rel. Frizzell|volume=238|page=537|year=1915}}</ref> Lynch notes that subsequent federal case law has interpreted the decision as holding that the District of Columbia ''quo warranto'' laws apply to all federal offices in the District of Columbia, to officers of the United States, and to members of Congress.{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=192–194}}<ref>{{cite court|litigants=Application of James|reporter=[[Federal Supplement|F. Supp.]]|vol=241|opinion=858|court=[[United States District Court for the Southern District of New York|S.D.N.Y.]]|date=1965|url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/241/858/1951206/|access-date=February 29, 2024}}</ref>
Under Article I, Section VIII, "Congress shall have the power … To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District … as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States",{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=548}} and as amended by Congress in 1963 and 1970, Chapter 35 of Title 16 of the District of Columbia Code provides the District of Columbia U.S. District Court the authority to issue writs of ''quo warranto'' against officers of the United States.<ref>{{cite web|title=Chapter 35. Quo Warranto. – D.C. Law Library|website=dccouncil.gov|publisher=[[Council of the District of Columbia]]|url=https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/titles/16/chapters/35|access-date=March 1, 2024}}</ref> While the Supreme Court held in ''Nixon v. Fitzgerald'' that a President is "entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts",<ref>{{ussc|name=Nixon v. Fitzgerald|volume=457|page=731|year=1982}}</ref> the Court subsequently held in ''[[Clinton v. Jones]]'' (1997) that "The principal rationale for affording Presidents immunity from damages actions based on their official acts… provides no support for an immunity for ''unofficial'' conduct."<ref name="Clinton v. Jones p. 682">{{ussc|name=Clinton v. Jones|volume=520|page=681|pin=682|year=1997}}</ref> The Court further concluded in ''Clinton v. Jones'' that "Deferral of [civil] litigation until [a] Presidency ends is not constitutionally required" because the [[Separation of powers under the United States Constitution|constitutional separation of powers]] "does not require federal courts to stay all private actions against the President until he leaves office" and that the constitutional separation of powers doctrine does not apply "[where] there is no suggestion that the Federal Judiciary is being asked to perform any function that might in some way be described as 'executive'… and … there is no possibility that the decision … will curtail the scope of the Executive Branch's official powers."<ref>{{ussc|name=Clinton v. Jones|volume=520|page=681|pin=681–682|year=1997}}</ref>
Reiterating its holdings in ''[[Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer]]'' (1952) and ''[[United States v. Nixon]]'' (1974),<ref>{{ussc|name=Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer|volume=343|page=579|year=1952}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=United States v. Nixon|volume=418|page=683|year=1974}}</ref> the Court noted that "it is settled that the Judiciary may severely burden the Executive Branch by reviewing the legality of the President's official conduct, and may direct appropriate process to the President himself. It must follow that the federal courts have power to determine the legality of the President's unofficial conduct."<ref name="Clinton v. Jones p. 682" /> In 2000, the OLC issued a revision to its 1973 opinion on [[Presidential immunity in the United States|presidential immunity]] that concluded that the Court's rulings in ''United States v. Nixon'', ''Nixon v. Fitzgerald'', and ''Clinton v. Jones'' were consistent with its 1973 opinion, and while the OLC reiterated its position that "The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions", the OLC acknowledged the Court's conclusion in ''Clinton v. Jones'' that an incumbent President has no immunity from civil litigation seeking damages for unofficial conduct.<ref>{{cite report|last=Moss|first=Randolph D.|date=October 16, 2000|title=A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution|publisher=Office of Legal Counsel|volume=24, Opinions|pages=222–260|url=https://www.justice.gov/d9/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf|access-date=January 29, 2024}}</ref> In February 2022, District of Columbia U.S. District Court Judge [[Amit Mehta]] ruled that presidential immunity did not shield Trump from the lawsuits filed by Bennie Thompson, Eric Swalwell, and the U.S. Capitol Police officers.<ref>{{cite news|last=Tau|first=Byron|date=February 18, 2022|title=Judge Allows Lawsuits to Proceed Against Donald Trump, Militia Groups in Jan 6. Lawsuit|work=The Wall Street Journal|publisher=News Corp|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-allows-lawsuits-to-proceed-against-donald-trump-militia-groups-in-jan-6-lawsuit-11645218911|access-date=October 5, 2023}}</ref>
While Trump appealed Mehta's ruling to the U.S. District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals in March 2022,<ref>{{cite news|last1=Cheney|first1=Kyle|last2=Gerstein|first2=Josh|date=November 27, 2023|title=Bid to hold Trump accountable for Jan. 6 violence stalls at appeals court|website=Politico|publisher=Axel Springer SE|url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/27/trump-immunity-appeal-00128786|access-date=November 29, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Barber|first=C. Ryan|date=March 2, 2023|title=Trump Can Be Sued Over Role in Jan. 6 Attack, Justice Department Says|work=The Wall Street Journal|publisher=News Corp|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-can-be-sued-over-role-in-jan-6-attack-justice-department-says-b9f5a58c|access-date=October 5, 2023}}</ref> the Circuit Court of Appeals panel (with Judges Gregory Katsas, [[Judith W. Rogers]], and [[Sri Srinivasan]] presiding) upheld Mehta's ruling in December 2023 because Trump was acting "as an office-seeker not office-holder" due to his speech on January 6 being a campaign event, and as such, did not fall within the "outer perimeter" standard established in ''Nixon v. Fitzgerald''.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Polantz|first1=Katelyn|last2=Lybrand|first2=Holmes|date=December 1, 2023|title=Trump doesn't have presidential immunity from lawsuits over January 6, appeals court rules|publisher=CNN|url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/01/politics/trump-presidential-immunity-january-6-lawsuits/index.html|access-date=December 1, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Weiner|first1=Rachel|last2=Hsu|first2=Spencer S.|date=December 1, 2023|title=Trump can be held civilly liable in Jan. 6 riot, judges rule|work=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/12/01/trump-can-be-sued-jan-6-immunity/|access-date=December 1, 2023}}</ref> On the same day the Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld the ruling that Trump was not immune from the civil lawsuits, District of Columbia U.S. District Court Judge [[Tanya Chutkan]] rejected a motion to dismiss the federal election obstruction indictment against Trump under presidential immunity which Trump appealed.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Barnes |first1=Daniel |last2=Richards |first2=Zoë |date=December 1, 2023 |title=Judge denies two of Trump's motions to dismiss his federal election interference case |publisher=NBC News |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/judge-denies-two-trumps-motions-dismiss-federal-election-interference-rcna127720 |access-date=December 3, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Legare |first=Robert |date=December 1, 2023 |title=Judge rejects Trump's motion to dismiss 2020 federal election interference case |publisher=CBS News |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-rejects-trump-motion-to-dismiss-2020-federal-election-interference-case/ |access-date=December 3, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=December 7, 2023 |title=Trump appeals Jan. 6 immunity ruling, launching process that may delay trial |newspaper=Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/12/07/trump-appeal-trial-immunity/ |access-date=December 11, 2023}}</ref> In February 2024, the Circuit Court of Appeals panel (with Judges Florence Pan, [[J. Michelle Childs]], and [[Karen L. Henderson]] presiding) unanimously affirmed the District Court ruling, concluding that Trump's alleged actions "lacked any lawful discretionary authority… and he is answerable in court for his conduct" because "former President Trump has become citizen Trump... [and] any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution."<ref>{{cite news|last1=Tucker|first1=Eric|last2=Richer|first2=Alanna Durkin|date=February 6, 2024|title=Trump is not immune from prosecution in his 2020 election interference case, US appeals court says|publisher=Associated Press|url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-capitol-riot-presidential-immunity-appeal-46c2d7fc7807cd3262764d35e47f390e|access-date=February 6, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Faulders|first1=Katherine|last2=Mallin|first2=Alexander|last3=Charalambous|first3=Peter|date=February 6, 2024|title=Appeals court rejects Trump's immunity claim in federal election interference case|publisher=ABC News|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/appeals-court-rejects-trumps-immunity-claim-federal-election/story?id=106380940|access-date=February 6, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Cole|first1=Devan|last2=Rabinowitz|first2=Hannah|last3=Lybrand|first3=Holmes|last4=Polantz|first4=Katelyn|last5=Cohen|first5=Marshall|date=February 6, 2024|title=Trump does not have presidential immunity in January 6 case, federal appeals court rules|publisher=CNN|url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/06/politics/trump-immunity-court-of-appeals/index.html|access-date=February 6, 2024}}</ref>
=== Ballot access and Electoral College vote count ===
{{See also|Incitatus|Non-human electoral candidates|List of frivolous political parties}}
As the "practical construction" of the Presidential Electors Clause had "conceded [[plenary power]] to the state legislatures in [choosing the method or mode of] appointment of electors",<ref>{{ussc|name=McPherson v. Blacker|volume=146|page=1|pin=35|year=1892}}</ref> the Supreme Court upheld a [[Michigan]] [[election law]] appointing presidential electors in ''[[McPherson v. Blacker]]'' (1892) because "where there is ambiguity or doubt" as to the meaning of constitutional text the "contemporaneous and subsequent practical construction is entitled to the greatest weight."<ref>{{ussc|name=McPherson v. Blacker|volume=146|page=1|pin=27|year=1892}}</ref>{{sfn|Neale|Nolan|2019|pp=26–29}} The Presidential Electors Clause states that "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress",{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=549}} and the clause delegates the authority to create election laws regulating [[election administration]] for presidential elections to state governments rather than the federal government.{{sfn|Gamboa|2001|pp=7–9}} In ''[[Chiafalo v. Washington]]'' (2020), the Court clarified in a unanimous decision that while the power delegated to state governments under the Presidential Electors Clause is not absolute,{{sfn|Neale|Nolan|2019|p=30}} the clause "gives the States far-reaching authority over presidential electors, absent some other constitutional constraint" and references the Presidential Qualifications Clause as an example.<ref>{{ussc|name=Chiafalo v. Washington|volume=591|year=2020|docket=19-465|slip=9}}</ref>{{sfn|Shelly|2020|pp=2–3}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=550–551}}
In ''[[Moore v. Harper]]'' (2023), the Court clarified further that the Presidential Electors Clause and the [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 1: Time, place, and manner of holding elections|Congressional Elections Clause of Article I, Section IV]] "[do] not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections" within their respective states in rejection of [[independent state legislature theory]], ruling that election laws passed by state legislatures pursuant to the clauses are not only restrained by the federal constitution and federal law but also remain subject to judicial review by state courts, [[presentment]] to [[Governor (United States)|state governors]], and the constraints of [[State constitutions in the United States|state constitutions]].<ref>{{ussc|name=Moore v. Harper|volume=600|year=2023|docket=21-1271|slip=11–29}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Sherman|first1=Mark|date=June 27, 2023|title=Supreme Court upholds North Carolina ruling, declines 'independent state legislature' theory|work=PBS NewsHour|publisher=WETA|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/supreme-court-upholds-north-carolina-ruling-declines-to-invoke-independent-state-legislature-theory|access-date=June 27, 2023|archive-date=June 27, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230627143803/https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/supreme-court-upholds-north-carolina-ruling-declines-to-invoke-independent-state-legislature-theory|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Hurley|first1=Lawrence|date=June 27, 2023|title=Supreme Court rules against giving state legislatures unchecked control over federal elections|publisher=NBC News|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-republicans-north-carolina-elections-dispute-rcna68630|access-date=June 27, 2023|archive-date=June 27, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230627142042/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-republicans-north-carolina-elections-dispute-rcna68630|url-status=live}}</ref> In upholding a California election law that denied [[ballot access]] to [[Independent politician|independent candidates]] who had a registered affiliation with a [[Political parties in the United States|political party]] within one year of a [[primary election]], the Supreme Court noted in ''[[Storer v. Brown]]'' (1974) that "the States have evolved comprehensive, and in many respects complex, election codes regulating in most substantial ways, with respect to both federal and state elections, the time, place, and manner of holding primary and general elections... and the selection and qualification of candidates",<ref>{{ussc|name=Storer v. Brown|volume=415|page=724|pin=730|year=1974}}</ref>{{sfn|Gamboa|2001|p=3}} and reiterating its holding in ''Jenness v. Fortson'' (1971),<ref>{{ussc|name=Jenness v. Fortson|volume=403|page=431|pin=442|year=1971}}</ref> the Court also noted that each "State has an interest, if not a duty, to protect the integrity of its political processes from frivolous or fraudulent candidacies."<ref>{{ussc|name=Storer v. Brown|volume=415|page=724|pin=733|year=1974}}</ref>{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024b|p=3}}
In upholding a [[Washington (state)|Washington]] general election ballot access law that required [[Third party (U.S. politics)|third-party candidates]] receive 1% of the vote in the state's [[blanket primary]] in ''Munro v. Socialist Workers Party'' (1986), the Court reiterated that such laws are constitutional to "prevent voter confusion, ballot overcrowding, or the presence of frivolous candidacies".<ref>{{ussc|name=Munro v. Socialist Workers|volume=479|page=189|pin=194–195|year=1986}}</ref> However, [[List of United States representatives from Maryland|Maryland Representative]] [[Jamie Raskin]] and [[National Voting Rights Institute]] founder [[John Bonifaz]] have noted that while the Supreme Court recognized a [[Rational basis review|legitimate government interest]] in blocking "frivolous candidacies" from the ballot in ''Bullock v. Carter'' (1972), the Court did not establish any qualifying criteria for "frivolous candidacies" and only held that using wealth and fundraising ability as criteria would "exclude legitimate as well as frivolous candidates".<ref>{{ussc|name=Bullock v. Carter|volume=405|page=134|pin=145–146|year=1972}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Raskin|first1=Jamin|last2=Bonifaz|first2=John|year=1994|title=The Constitutional Imperative and Practical Superiority of Democratically Financed Elections|journal=[[Columbia Law Review]]|publisher=Columbia Law Review Association|volume=94|issue=4|page=1169|doi=10.2307/1123281|jstor=1123281}}</ref> The Supreme Court reaffirmed in ''Lubin v. Panish'' (1974) that ability to pay a filing fee as a condition for ballot access was unconstitutional,<ref>{{ussc|name=Lubin v. Panish|volume=415|page=709|year=1974}}</ref> while the Supreme Court struck down a pair of [[Ohio]] ballot access laws in ''[[Williams v. Rhodes]]'' (1968) and ''[[Anderson v. Celebrezze]]'' (1983) for being discriminatory towards third party and independent candidates in violation of the right to [[freedom of association]] under the 1st Amendment and the [[Equal Protection Clause]].{{sfn|Neale|Nolan|2019|p=30}}{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024b|p=3}}<ref>{{ussc|name=Williams v. Rhodes|volume=393|page=23|pin=23–24|year=1968}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=Anderson v. Celebrezze|volume=460|page=780|pin=790–795|year=1983}}</ref>
In most states, ballot access for candidates is acquired by signature [[petition]]s that indicate a minimum level of support,{{sfn|Amado|2022|pp=27–32}} while political parties typically acquire ballot access for their nominees by a minimum vote share in a previous election, a minimum percentage of [[Voter registration in the United States|voter registrations]] in the state that are party-affiliated, or signature petitions.{{sfn|Amado|2022|pp=54–61}}<ref>{{cite report|title=Summary: State Laws Regarding Presidential Ballot Access for the General Election|date=January 2020|publisher=[[National Association of Secretaries of State]]|url=https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/surveys/2020-07/research-ballot-access-president-Jan20_0.pdf|access-date=January 8, 2024|archive-date=November 17, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231117225142/https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/surveys/2020-07/research-ballot-access-president-Jan20_0.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> While the Court held in ''[[Noerr–Pennington doctrine|Eastern Railroad Conference v. Noerr Motors]]'' (1961) and ''[[California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited]]'' (1972) that the [[right to petition in the United States|right to petition]] under the 1st Amendment is not confined to "a redress of grievances" and extends to the "approach of citizens or groups of them to administrative agencies... courts... [and] all departments of the Government",<ref>{{ussc|name=Eastern R. Conference v. Noerr Motors|volume=365|page=127|year=1961}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited|volume=404|page=508|pin=510|year=1972}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Rights of Assembly and Petition|website=[[Justia]]|url=https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/18-rights-of-assembly-and-petition.html|access-date=January 5, 2024|archive-date=January 6, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240106042753/https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/18-rights-of-assembly-and-petition.html|url-status=live}}</ref>{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=558}} the Court also held in ''Neitzke v. Williams'' (1989) that a legal claim is "frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact."<ref>{{ussc|name=Neitzke v. Williams|volume=490|page=319|pin=325|year=1989}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=frivolous – Wex – US Law|website=Legal Information Institute|publisher=Cornell Law School|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/frivolous|access-date=January 5, 2024|archive-date=June 2, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230602010611/https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/frivolous|url-status=live}}</ref> In addition to ballot access laws, most states have election laws mandating [[Vote counting|vote tabulation]] registration requirements for [[write-in candidate]]s.<ref>{{cite web |date=August 18, 2023 |title=Write-in candidates for federal and state elections|url=https://www.usa.gov/write-in-candidates |access-date=December 6, 2023 |website=[[USA.gov]] |publisher=[[General Services Administration]] |archive-date=December 8, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231208222400/https://www.usa.gov/write-in-candidates |url-status=live }}</ref>{{sfn|Election Assistance Commission|2023|pp=5–7}} Since at least the [[New York City mayoral elections|1932 New York City mayoral election]], [[Mickey Mouse]] has received write-in votes in many elections as a [[protest vote]].<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://prospect.org/article/if-you-give-mouse-vote |title=If You Give a Mouse a Vote |last1=Fuller |first1=Jaime |date=November 5, 2013 |journal=[[The American Prospect]] |access-date=December 30, 2014 |archive-date=January 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180114182610/http://prospect.org/article/if-you-give-mouse-vote |url-status=live }}</ref>{{sfn|Election Assistance Commission|2023|p=1}}
In reaffirming its holding in ''Powell v. McCormack'', the Court clarified in ''[[U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton]]'' (1995) that state election laws regulating ballot access and election administration do not amount to additional qualifications for elected office because such laws "{{zero width joiner}}[regulate] election ''procedures'' and [do] not ... [render] a class of potential candidates ineligible",<ref>{{ussc|name=U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton|volume=514|page=779|pin=834–835|year=1995}}</ref><ref name="CRS 8-12-2002" /> but referencing the 22nd Amendment, the Court concluded that [[Term limits in the United States|term limits]] do amount to a qualification because "[t]erm limits... unquestionably restrict the ability of voters to vote for whom they wish."<ref>{{ussc|name=U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton|volume=514|page=779|pin=837|year=1995}}</ref> The Court also stated that "the Framers understood the [Congressional] Elections Clause as a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power … to evade important constitutional restraints."<ref>{{ussc|name=U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton|volume=514|page=779|pin=833–834|year=1995}}</ref> Associate Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] argued in the [[dissenting opinion]] that state governments had the [[Reserved powers|reserved power]] to create term limits for members of Congress from their respective states, but qualified that state election laws may be invalidated if "something in the federal constitution ... deprives the [States of] the power to enact such [a] measur[e]",<ref>{{ussc|name=U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton|volume=514|page=779|pin=850|year=1995|dissent=Thomas, J.}}</ref> and that states have "no reserved power to establish qualifications for the office of President... [b]ecause ... no State may legislate for another State".<ref>{{cite journal|last=Feeley|first=Kristin|title=Comment: Guaranteeing a Federally Elected President|year=2009|journal=[[Northwestern University Law Review]]|volume=103|issue=3|publisher=[[Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law]]|url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1121483|ssrn=1121483|access-date=October 13, 2020|archive-date=March 28, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200328195108/https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1121483|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton|volume=514|page=779|pin=861|year=1995|dissent=Thomas, J.}}</ref>
While Thomas reiterated the reasoning of the dissenting opinion in his [[concurring opinion]] in ''Chiafalo v. Washington'',{{sfn|Shelly|2020|pp=2–3}} Thomas stated in the second part of his concurring opinion that the "powers related to [presidential] electors reside with States to the extent that the Constitution does not remove or restrict that power", and citing ''Williams v. Rhodes'', that states cannot exercise their powers over presidential electors "in such a way as to violate express constitutional commands."<ref>{{ussc|name=Chiafalo v. Washington|volume=591|year=2020|docket=19-465|slip=11–12|concurrence=Thomas, J.|concurrence-type=concurring in judgment}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=Williams v. Rhodes|volume=393|page=23|pin=29|year=1968}}</ref> In addition to joining with the majority in ''Chiafalo v. Washington'', Associate Justice [[Neil Gorsuch]] joined Thomas in the second part of the concurring opinion.{{sfn|Shelly|2020|pp=2–3}}<ref>{{ussc|name=Chiafalo v. Washington|volume=591|year=2020|docket=19-465|slip=3}}</ref> Lynch cites the Court's opinion in ''U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton'' as suggesting that state governments are mandated to enforce the constitutional eligibility requirements for federal office, and while acknowledging that ballot access laws vary by state,{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=184–186}} Lynch notes that many states permit formal challenges to candidates for the presidency and vice presidency on the basis of constitutional eligibility and that states can prohibit presidential electors from voting for constitutionally ineligible candidates.{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=189–190}} In summarizing the debate among legal scholars over whether the 22nd Amendment places a restriction on holding the Presidency and Vice Presidency due to the eligibility requirement for the Vice Presidency under the 12th Amendment,{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=561}} the CRS has noted that the text of the 22nd Amendment explicitly requires at a minimum that "No person shall be ''elected'' to the office of the President more than twice".<ref>{{cite report|last=Neale|first=Thomas H.|date=April 15, 2019|title=Presidential Terms and Tenure: Perspectives and Proposals for Change|publisher=Congressional Research Service|pages=24–26|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R40864|access-date=January 11, 2024}}</ref>{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=565}}
The CRS has also noted that the concurring opinion in the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the Madison Cawthorn Section 3 lawsuit argued that no court has ever held that state governments are precluded from determining the constitutional eligibility of candidates for Congress under the Electoral Judgement Clause and may do so under the Congressional Elections Clause.<ref name="CRS 6-1-2022 p. 3" />{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=544}} While Lynch suggests that Section 3 challenges to prevent the administration of an oath of office to candidates-elect for state office could occur by a writ of [[mandamus]] and that states retain the authority to judge legal contests for presidential elections,{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=186–187}} Lynch argues that post-election Section 3 challenges would more likely be used to challenge the eligibility of presidential electors rather than a President-elect or Vice President-elect and that a post-election but pre-inauguration Section 3 challenge to candidates-elect for the latter positions would more likely occur at the Electoral College vote count.{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=190–191}} Conversely, noting that the 1860 [[List of United States Republican Party presidential tickets|Republican Party presidential ticket]] of Abraham Lincoln and [[Hannibal Hamlin]] was not on the ballot in multiple states that appointed their presidential electors on the basis of a poll,{{efn|The 1860 Republican ticket was not on the ballot in 9 states: [[1860 United States presidential election in Alabama|Alabama]], [[1860 United States presidential election in Arkansas|Arkansas]], [[1860 United States presidential election in Florida|Florida]], [[1860 United States presidential election in Georgia|Georgia]], [[1860 United States presidential election in Louisiana|Louisiana]], [[1860 United States presidential election in Mississippi|Mississippi]], [[1860 United States presidential election in North Carolina|North Carolina]], [[1860 United States presidential election in Tennessee|Tennessee]], and [[1860 United States presidential election in Texas|Texas]]. Presidential electors in [[1860 United States presidential election in South Carolina|South Carolina]] were appointed at the discretion of the South Carolina General Assembly and not on the basis of a poll.<ref>{{cite book|last=Mansch|first=Larry D.|year=2005|title=Abraham Lincoln, President-elect: The Four Critical Months from Election to Inauguration|publisher=McFarland & Company|location=Jefferson, North Carolina|url={{google books|plainurl=y|id=NMt-yrjVE50C}}|isbn=978-0-7864-2026-1 |page=61}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Donald |first=David Herbert |author-link=David Herbert Donald |year=1996 |title=Lincoln |location=New York |publisher=Simon & Schuster|page= 256 |isbn=978-0-684-82535-9}}</ref><ref name="Williams 2012 p. 1567" />}} [[Yale Law School]] professor [[Akhil Reed Amar|Akhil Amar]] has argued that there is no constitutional requirement that each state apply Section 3 following the same ballot access procedures and that states may also leave Section 3 to be enforced instead by Congress at the Electoral College vote count.<ref>{{cite news|last=Amar|first=Akhil Reed|date=February 7, 2024|title=The Supreme Court Should Get Out of the Insurrection Business|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Company|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/07/opinion/supreme-court-trump-section-3.html|access-date=February 7, 2024}}</ref>
Rule 81 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolished federal writs of mandamus, but provides that "Relief previously available through them may be obtained by appropriate action or motion under these rules."<ref name="Fed. R. Civ. P. R 81" /> Under Section 109 of the ECRA, members of Congress remain permitted to object to the counting of the electoral votes from any state or the District of Columbia at the Electoral College vote count (which remains scheduled for the January 6 after the [[United States Electoral College#Meetings|Electoral College meetings]]) if the electors were not lawfully certified under a [[certificate of ascertainment]] or if one or more of the electoral votes have not been regularly given, and concurrent majorities in both houses of Congress remain necessary for objections to be sustained.<ref name="NPR 12-23-2022" /><ref>{{usstat|136|5237}}, {{uspl|117|328}}, {{USC|3|15}}</ref>{{sfn|Rybicki|Whitaker|2020|pp=6–8}} At the Electoral College vote count following the [[1872 United States presidential election|1872 presidential election]], objections to counting the 14 electoral votes from [[1872 United States presidential election in Arkansas|Arkansas]] and [[1872 United States presidential election in Louisiana|Louisiana]] for the Republican Party ticket were sustained due to voting irregularities and allegations of [[electoral fraud]],{{sfn|Rybicki|Whitaker|2020|pp=4–5}}{{sfn|Senate Journal 42(3)|pp=340–344}} while objections to counting the 3 electoral votes from [[1872 United States presidential election in Georgia|Georgia]] that had been cast for [[Liberal Republican Party (United States)|Liberal Republican Party]] and [[List of United States Democratic Party presidential tickets|Democratic Party presidential nominee]] [[Horace Greeley]] (who had died after [[Election Day (United States)|Election Day]] but prior to the Electoral College meetings) were sustained because Greeley's death rendered him constitutionally ineligible for the Presidency as he was "[no longer] a person within the meaning of the Constitution" and so his electoral votes "[could not] lawfully be counted".{{sfn|Neale|2020c|p=4}}{{sfn|Senate Journal 42(3)|pp=334–337}}
At the Electoral College meetings following the [[1912 United States presidential election|1912 presidential election]], the 8 electoral votes from [[1912 United States presidential election in Utah|Utah]] and [[1912 United States presidential election in Vermont|Vermont]] for the Republican Party nominee for vice president were cast for [[Nicholas Murray Butler]] instead of [[James S. Sherman]], as the latter, who had been nominated at the [[1912 Republican National Convention|Republican National Convention]], died less than a week before Election Day.{{sfn|Neale|2020c|p=3}} While holding that state governments may restrict [[Faithless elector|presidential electors from voting faithlessly]] upon pain of penalty, removal, and replacement, the Supreme Court also noted in ''Chiafalo v. Washington'' that while the question had not been presented in the case, "nothing in this opinion should be taken to permit the States to bind electors to a deceased candidate" in reference to the fact that the 63 presidential electors pledged to Horace Greeley in 1872 who voted faithlessly accounted for one-third of all of the faithless elector votes in the history of U.S. presidential elections.<ref>{{ussc|name=Chiafalo v. Washington|volume=591|year=2020|docket=19-465|slip=16–17}}</ref>{{sfn|Shelly|2020|p=3}}{{sfn|Neale|2020c|p=4}} In ''Fitzgerald v. Green'' (1890) and ''[[Bush v. Gore]]'' (2000), the Supreme Court held that presidential electors are state government officials,<ref>{{cite journal|first1=Bradley T.|last1=Turflinger|title=Fifty Republics and the National Popular Vote: How the Guarantee Clause Should Protect States Striving for Equal Protection in Presidential Elections|url=http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1443&context=vulr|journal=Valparaiso University Law Review|publisher=Valco Scholar|access-date=September 25, 2012|year=2011|volume=45|issue=3|page=798|archive-date=October 6, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141006180449/http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1443&context=vulr|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=In re Green|volume=134|page=377|pin=379|year=1890}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=Bush v. Gore|volume=531|page=98|pin=112|year=2000}}</ref> and the Oath or Affirmation Clause also requires that "all executive and judicial Officers... of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution".{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=555–556}} Under the 12th Amendment, [[contingent election]]s for president and Vice President are held by the House of Representatives and the Senate respectively if no candidate receives "a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed".{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=560–561}}{{sfn|Neale|2020b|p=i}}{{sfn|Rybicki|Whitaker|2020|pp=4–5}}
Section 1 of the [[Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution|20th Amendment]] changed the expiration date for congressional terms of office to January 3 and presidential and vice presidential terms of office to January 20, and Section 2 of the 20th Amendment changed the commencement date of [[Legislative session|congressional sessions]] to January 3 from the first Monday of December under the [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 2: Sessions of Congress|Congressional Sessions Clause of Article I, Section IV]].{{sfn|Neale|2020b|p=9}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=544–545; 564}} Consequently, contingent elections are now conducted by incoming congressional sessions rather than by [[lame-duck session]]s.{{sfn|Neale|2020b|pp=9–10}} Section 3 of the 20th Amendment provides that if a [[President-elect of the United States|President-elect]] is not chosen or fails to qualify before [[United States presidential inauguration|Inauguration Day]] that the [[Vice President-elect of the United States|Vice President-elect]] [[Acting President of the United States|acts as President]] until a President is chosen; in the event that a contingent election conducted by the House fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day or if the Electoral College attempts to elect a President constitutionally ineligible to serve, and if a Vice President has also not been elected or the Vice President-elect has failed to qualify by Inauguration Day as well, Congress is delegated the power to declare who will act as President or create a selection process by which an Acting President is chosen until a President or Vice President has qualified.{{sfn|Neale|2020a|p=4}}{{sfn|Neale|2020b|p=10}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=564–565}} Under Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, the Vice President-elect only becomes the President if the President-elect dies before Inauguration Day.{{sfn|Continuity of Government Commission|2009|p=31}}{{sfn|Neale|2020a|p=4}}{{sfn|Neale|2020c|pp=6–7}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=564–565}}
The 80th United States Congress included "failure to qualify" as a condition for presidential succession under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947.{{sfn|Continuity of Government Commission|2009|p=31}} Under Sections 102 and 106 of the ECRA, states may only appoint presidential electors under election laws enacted prior to Election Day and the electors are required to meet on the first Tuesday following the second Wednesday of December following their appointment.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Underhill |first1=Wendy |date=January 16, 2023 |title=What the Electoral Count Reform Act Means for States |url=https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/what-the-electoral-count-reform-act-means-for-states |access-date=August 21, 2023 |publisher=National Conference of State Legislatures |archive-date=August 21, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230821194340/https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/what-the-electoral-count-reform-act-means-for-states |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{usstat|136|5233}}, {{uspl|117|328}}, {{usc|3|1}}, {{usc|3|7}}</ref> Under the [[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 4: Election day|Electoral College Meetings Clause of Article II, Section I]], "Congress may determine the Time of [choosing presidential] Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes",{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=550}} while the Necessary and Proper Clause states that "Congress shall have Power... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution ... all ... Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States".{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=548}}{{sfn|Gamboa|2001|pp=7–9}} In ''[[Burroughs v. United States]]'' (1934), the Supreme Court upheld the [[Federal Corrupt Practices Act]] because that law "[n]either in purpose nor in effect ... interfere[d] with the power of a state to appoint electors or the manner in which their appointment shall be made",<ref>{{ussc|name=Burroughs v. United States|volume=290|page=534|pin=544|year=1934}}</ref> and since presidential electors "exercise federal functions under... the Constitution... Congress [possesses the power] to pass appropriate legislation to safeguard [presidential elections] ... to preserve the departments and institutions of the general government from impairment or destruction, whether threatened by force or by corruption."<ref>{{ussc|name=Burroughs v. United States|volume=290|page=534|pin=545|year=1934}}</ref>{{sfn|Gamboa|2001|pp=7–9}}{{efn|The Impeachment Clause of Article II, Section IV lists "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" as the [[Federal impeachment in the United States|impeachable offenses]] for President, Vice President, and the civil officers of the United States.{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=551–552}}}}
== Litigation ==
A court may be required to make a final determination that Trump was disqualified under Section 3, according to some legal scholars.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Rosenwald |first1=Michael S. |date=January 12, 2021 |title=There's an alternative to impeachment or 25th Amendment for Trump, historians say |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/01/11/14th-amendment-trump-insurrection-impeachment/ |access-date=January 18, 2021|archive-date=January 18, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210118095401/https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/01/11/14th-amendment-trump-insurrection-impeachment/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Luttig |first1=J. Michael |last2=Wallace |first2=Nicole |date=August 22, 2023 |title=Fmr. federal judge: Trump, allies committed 'grave crimes' with 2020 election coup plot|work=[[MSNBC]]|url=https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/watch/fmr-federal-judge-trump-allies-committed-grave-crimes-with-2020-election-coup-plot-191375429762 |url-status=live |access-date=August 23, 2023|archive-url=https://archive.today/20230823211323/https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/watch/fmr-federal-judge-trump-allies-committed-grave-crimes-with-2020-election-coup-plot-191375429762 |archive-date=August 23, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Luttig |first1=J. Michael|last2=Wallace|first2=Nicole|date=August 22, 2023 |title=Judge Luttig: Secretaries Of States Will Decline To Place Trump On The Ballot, Argue He Is Unqualified|work=[[RealClearPolitics]]|url=https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/08/22/judge_luttig_secretaries_of_states_will_decline_to_place_trump_on_the_ballot_argue_he_is_unqualified.html |url-status=live |access-date=August 23, 2023|archive-url=https://archive.today/wip/qNVot |archive-date=August 23, 2023}}</ref> The United States Supreme Court has never ruled on the insurrection clause in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.<ref name="Cohen">{{Cite news |last1=Cohen |first1=Marshall |date=November 14, 2023 |title=Trump to remain on Michigan ballot after judge rejects another 14th Amendment challenge|language=en|work=[[CNN]]|url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/14/politics/michigan-judge-trump-14th-amendment/index.html |access-date=November 18, 2023 |archive-date=November 18, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231118004525/https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/14/politics/michigan-judge-trump-14th-amendment/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="BBC231118">{{Cite news|date=November 18, 2023 |title=Donald Trump to remain on Colorado primary ballot after judge dismisses lawsuit |language=en-GB |work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67446313 |access-date=November 18, 2023|archive-date=November 18, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231118004150/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67446313 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Woodruff |first1=Chase |date=December 6, 2023|title=Colorado Supreme Court hears arguments in Trump 14th Amendment case |language=en |work=[[Colorado Newsline]]|url=https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/12/06/colorado-supreme-court-trump-14th-amendment/|access-date=December 8, 2023 |archive-date=December 7, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231207224042/https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/12/06/colorado-supreme-court-trump-14th-amendment/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
In December 2023, pending challenges to Trump's eligibility existed in state courts in Colorado, Michigan, Oregon, and Wisconsin; and in federal courts in Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, New York, New Mexico, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Corasaniti |first1=Nick |date=December 20, 2023 |title=Here Are the Other States Where Trump's Ballot Eligibility Faces a Challenge |language=en-US |work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/20/us/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-other-states.html |access-date=December 20, 2023 |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=December 20, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231220231614/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/20/us/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-other-states.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |first1=Hyemin |last1=Han |first2=Caleb |last2=Benjamin |date=October 30, 2023|first3=Anna|last3=Bower|first4=Matt |last4=Gluck |first5=Tyler |last5=McBrien |first6=Roger |last6=Parloff |title=Tracking Section 3 Trump Disqualification Challenges |url=https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker |website=Lawfare |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231230045108/https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker |url-status=live |archive-date=December 30, 2023 |language=en}}</ref> The non-profit group [[Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington]] (CREW) and other advocacy groups and individuals are planning state-by-state efforts to keep Trump off state ballots.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Scherer |first1=Michael |date=April 19, 2023 |title=Trump team prepares to fight efforts to block him from ballots over Jan. 6 |language=en-US |newspaper=Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/18/trump-ballots-january-6/ |access-date=October 27, 2023 |issn=0190-8286}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Demissie |first1=Hannah |last2=Gersony |first2=Laura |date=August 26, 2023|title=14th Amendment, Section 3: A new legal battle against Trump takes shape |work=[[ABC News]]|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/14th-amendment-section-3-new-legal-battle-trump/story?id=102547316 |access-date=September 6, 2023|archive-date=September 5, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230905231239/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/14th-amendment-section-3-new-legal-battle-trump/story?id=102547316 |url-status=live }}</ref>
=== Supreme Court ===
In January 2024, the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] announced that it would hear ''[[Trump v. Anderson]]'' to determine Trump's electoral eligibility, following Trump's appeal against the [[Colorado district courts|Colorado District Court's]] [[Trump v. Anderson|decision]] to disqualify him from running in that state. The ruling will apply across all states.<ref name=":2">{{Cite news |date=January 5, 2024 |title=Supreme Court to rule if Trump can run for president|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67899435|access-date=January 5, 2024 |work=BBC News|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240106105126/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67899435|archive-date=January 6, 2024 |url-status=live |language=en-GB}}</ref> On January 26, lawyers for CREW submitted a court filing describing the attack on the Capitol and Trump's actions beforehand.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sherman |first=Mark |date=January 27, 2024|title=SCOTUS Urged To Rule Trump Ineligible To Be President Again Because Of Jan. 6 Insurrection |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-urged-rule-trump-ineligible-president-again-over-jan_n_65b500afe4b0d407294f429a |access-date=January 27, 2024 |website=HuffPost |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=January 26, 2024 |title=Brief on the merits for Anderson Respondents (Trump v. Anderson No. 23-719) |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/298854/20240126115645084_23-719%20Anderson%20Respondents%20Merits%20Brief.pdf |access-date=January 27, 2024 |website=supremecourt.gov}}</ref>
On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court heard arguments. Trump did not attend.<ref name=reutersfeb8/> On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states had no authority to remove Trump from their ballots, reversing the Colorado Supreme Court.<ref name = "politicoMarch4"/>
=== Lower federal courts ===
On August 24, 2023, Lawrence Caplan, a tax attorney in [[Palm Beach County]], Florida, filed a challenge in the [[United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida|Southern Florida U.S. District Court]] to disqualify Trump from the 2024 General Election, citing the 14th Amendment.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Lee |first1=Ella |date=August 25, 2023 |title=Florida lawyer files challenge to disqualify Trump from 2024 race, citing 14th Amendment |work=The Hill|url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4171623-florida-lawyer-files-challenge-to-disqualify-trump-from-2024-race-citing-14th-amendment/ |access-date=December 20, 2023 |archive-date=December 3, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231203210638/https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4171623-florida-lawyer-files-challenge-to-disqualify-trump-from-2024-race-citing-14th-amendment/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=August 24, 2023 |title=Caplan v. TRUMP, 0:23-cv-61628, (S.D. Fla. Aug 24, 2023) ECF No.|url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67724934/1/caplan-v-trump/ |website=Court Listener |access-date=December 20, 2023 |archive-date=September 5, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230905134136/https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67724934/1/caplan-v-trump/ |url-status=live }}</ref> One week later on September 1, [[United States District Judge]] [[Robin L. Rosenberg]] dismissed the case for lack of [[Standing (law)|standing]].<ref>{{cite news |last1=Man |first1=Anthony |date=September 1, 2023 |title=Federal judge dismisses Florida lawsuit seeking to have Trump declared ineligible for presidency |work=The South Florida Sun Sentinel|url=https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2023/09/01/federal-judge-dismisses-florida-lawsuit-seeking-to-have-trump-declared-ineligible-for-presidency/ |access-date=December 20, 2023|archive-date=November 15, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231115234011/https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2023/09/01/federal-judge-dismisses-florida-lawsuit-seeking-to-have-trump-declared-ineligible-for-presidency/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
By the end of October, [[John Anthony Castro]], a candidate for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, had sued Trump based on the 14th Amendment in at least 26 federal district courts across the country.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Fisher |first1=Damien |date=October 22, 2023 |title=The $600 Man Trying To Bring Down Trump |work=New Hampshire Journal|url=https://nhjournal.com/the-600-man-trying-to-bring-down-trump |access-date=October 24, 2023|archive-date=October 23, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231023023335/https://nhjournal.com/the-600-man-trying-to-bring-down-trump/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Benson |first1=Samuel |date=September 7, 2023|title=New Utah lawsuit attempts to bar Trump from 2024 election ballot |work=[[Deseret News]] |url=https://www.deseret.com/2023/9/7/23862928/utah-lawsuit-bar-trump-2024-election-ballot-14th-amendment |access-date=October 24, 2023|archive-url=https://archive.today/20230909044601/https://www.deseret.com/2023/9/7/23862928/utah-lawsuit-bar-trump-2024-election-ballot-14th-amendment |archive-date=September 9, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Ross|first1=Keaton|date=September 13, 2023 |title=Lawsuit seeks to block Trump from the ballot in Oklahoma |work=[[Norman Transcript]]|url=https://www.normantranscript.com/news/lawsuit-seeks-to-block-trump-from-the-ballot-in-oklahoma/article_e2c0fab0-51b5-11ee-b6f8-3f1640ff9d62.html |access-date=October 24, 2023|archive-url=https://archive.today/20230913223013/https://www.normantranscript.com/news/lawsuit-seeks-to-block-trump-from-the-ballot-in-oklahoma/article_e2c0fab0-51b5-11ee-b6f8-3f1640ff9d62.html |archive-date=September 13, 2023 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Quinn |first1=Melissa |title=Trump's eligibility for the ballot is being challenged under the 14th Amendment. Here are the notable cases. |date=December 29, 2023|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-ballot-14th-amendment-section-3-2024-eligibility/ |website=CBS News |access-date=December 30, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=December 29, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231229230933/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-ballot-14th-amendment-section-3-2024-eligibility/ |url-status=live }}</ref> On October 2, 2023, the [[United States Supreme Court]] declined to hear Castro's appeal of a Florida federal court's dismissal of his case for lack of standing.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Cole |first1=Devan |date=October 2, 2023 |title=Supreme Court declines to consider longshot bid to disqualify Trump from running for president|language=en|work=[[CNN]]|url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/02/politics/donald-trump-fourteenth-amendment-ballot-case-supreme-court/index.html |access-date=October 2, 2023 |archive-date=October 2, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231002153730/https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/02/politics/donald-trump-fourteenth-amendment-ballot-case-supreme-court/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Kruzel|first1=John|date=October 2, 2023 |title=US Supreme Court rebuffs long-shot candidate's bid to disqualify Trump in 2024|language=en|work=[[Reuters]]|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-rebuffs-long-shot-candidates-bid-disqualify-trump-2024-2023-10-02/ |access-date=November 18, 2023 |archive-date=November 15, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231115220433/https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-rebuffs-long-shot-candidates-bid-disqualify-trump-2024-2023-10-02/ |url-status=live }}</ref> On October 30, Castro's lawsuit in the [[United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire|New Hampshire U.S. District Court]] was also dismissed for lack of standing. The New Hampshire court opined that even if Castro had standing, his claims would seem to be barred as a [[political question]].<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Landrigan |first1=Kevin |date=October 31, 2023|title=NH fed judge dismisses suit to knock Trump off ballot |language=en-US |work=[[New Hampshire Union Leader]]|url=https://news.yahoo.com/nh-fed-judge-dismisses-suit-035900442.html |access-date=November 18, 2023 |via=[[Yahoo News]] |archive-date=November 18, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231118045311/https://news.yahoo.com/nh-fed-judge-dismisses-suit-035900442.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Downey |first1=K. C.|date=October 30, 2023|title=Judge dismisses candidate's lawsuit to keep Trump off New Hampshire primary ballot|language=en|work=[[WMUR]]|url=https://www.wmur.com/article/new-hampshire-donald-trump-ballot-lawsuit-dismiss/45682757|access-date=November 18, 2023 |archive-date=November 18, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231118001727/https://www.wmur.com/article/new-hampshire-donald-trump-ballot-lawsuit-dismiss/45682757 |url-status=live }}</ref> In late November, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit|U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals]] affirmed the dismissal for lack of standing.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Cleaves |first1=Ashley |date=December 1, 2023|title=1st Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Trump Eligibility Challenge in New Hampshire |language=en |work=Democracy Docket|url=https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/1st-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-trump-eligibility-challenge-in-new-hampshire/ |access-date=December 20, 2023 |archive-date=December 3, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231203195645/https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/1st-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-trump-eligibility-challenge-in-new-hampshire/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Castro has also had federal lawsuits dismissed for lack of standing in Rhode Island,<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Swoyer |first1=Alex |date=November 27, 2023 |title=Trump wins another ballot challenge, federal judge dismisses Rhode Island case |language=en |work=The Washington Times|url=https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/nov/27/trump-wins-another-ballot-challenge-federal-judge-/ |access-date=December 10, 2023|archive-date=December 10, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231210032145/https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/nov/27/trump-wins-another-ballot-challenge-federal-judge-/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Mulvaney |first1=Katie |date=November 27, 2023 |title=Suit by Republican challenger to keep Trump off the ballot in RI dismissed. What comes next? |language=en |work=Providence Journal|url=https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/politics/2023/11/27/trump-keeps-right-to-be-on-presidential-ballot-in-ri/71720185007/ |access-date=December 10, 2023 |archive-date=December 10, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231210032145/https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/politics/2023/11/27/trump-keeps-right-to-be-on-presidential-ballot-in-ri/71720185007/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Arizona<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Lebowitz |first1=Megan |date=December 6, 2023|title=Federal judge rejects bid to keep Trump off the ballot in Arizona |language=en |work=NBC News|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/federal-judge-rejects-bid-keep-trump-ballot-arizona-rcna128239 |access-date=December 10, 2023 |archive-date=December 10, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231210025557/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/federal-judge-rejects-bid-keep-trump-ballot-arizona-rcna128239 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Cleaves|first1=Ashley|date=December 5, 2023 |title=Federal Judge Dismisses Trump Eligibility Challenge in Arizona |language=en |work=Democracy Docket|url=https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/federal-judge-dismisses-trump-eligibility-challenge-in-arizona/ |access-date=December 10, 2023 |archive-date=December 10, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231210025557/https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/federal-judge-dismisses-trump-eligibility-challenge-in-arizona/ |url-status=live }}</ref> and West Virginia,<ref name="Dickerson">{{Cite news |last1=Dickerson |first1=Chris |date=December 21, 2023 |title=Federal judge dismisses attempt to keep Trump off West Virginia ballot|url=https://wvrecord.com/stories/653224464-federal-judge-dismisses-attempt-to-keep-trump-off-west-virginia-ballot |website=West Virginia Record |access-date=December 23, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=December 23, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231223115251/https://wvrecord.com/stories/653224464-federal-judge-dismisses-attempt-to-keep-trump-off-west-virginia-ballot |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=McElhinny|first1=Brad |date=December 22, 2023 |title=Lawsuit to boot Trump off West Virginia ballots is dismissed because plaintiff lacks standing|url=https://wvmetronews.com/2023/12/22/lawsuit-to-boot-trump-off-west-virginia-ballots-is-dismissed-because-plaintiff-lacks-standing/ |website=MetroNews |access-date=December 23, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=December 23, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231223115251/https://wvmetronews.com/2023/12/22/lawsuit-to-boot-trump-off-west-virginia-ballots-is-dismissed-because-plaintiff-lacks-standing/ |url-status=live }}</ref> and has voluntarily dismissed several others.<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Sullivan|first1=Becky |date=December 21, 2023 |title=What's next after Colorado? Here's where other challenges to Trump's candidacy stand|url=https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection |website=NPR |access-date=December 23, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=December 22, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231222190817/https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Dickerson"/> By early January 2024, Castro had filed a second lawsuit in New Hampshire,<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Mitropoulos |first1=Arielle |date=January 2, 2024|title=Little-known candidate files another lawsuit to block Trump from New Hampshire ballot |url=https://www.wmur.com/article/lawsuit-donald-trump-new-hampshire-ballot-010224/46269696 |website=WMUR |access-date=January 5, 2024|language=en |archive-date=January 5, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240105050226/https://www.wmur.com/article/lawsuit-donald-trump-new-hampshire-ballot-010224/46269696 |url-status=live }}</ref> and appealed the district court rulings in Florida,<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Winger |first1=Richard |date=August 12, 2023 |title=John Anthony Castro Files Brief in Eleventh Circuit in Florida Trump Ballot Access Case |url=https://ballot-access.org/2023/10/12/john-anthony-castro-files-brief-in-eleventh-circuit-in-florida-trump-ballot-access-case/ |website=Ballot Access News |access-date=January 5, 2024 |language=en |archive-date=January 7, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240107020838/https://ballot-access.org/2023/10/12/john-anthony-castro-files-brief-in-eleventh-circuit-in-florida-trump-ballot-access-case/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Arizona<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Stanton|first1=Andrew|date=January 2, 2024 |title=Donald Trump's Biggest Ballot Case Hasn't Happened Yet |url=https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-ballot-challenge-john-anthony-castro-1857069 |website=Newsweek |access-date=January 5, 2024 |language=en |archive-date=January 5, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240105001243/https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-ballot-challenge-john-anthony-castro-1857069 |url-status=live }}</ref> and West Virginia,<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Adams|first1=Steven Allen |date=December 28, 2023 |title=Dismissal of lawsuit to keep Trump off W.Va. ballot appealed |url=https://www.mariettatimes.com/news/local-news/2023/12/dismissal-of-lawsuit-to-keep-trump-off-w-va-ballot-appealed/ |website=The Marietta Times |access-date=January 5, 2024 |language=en |archive-date=December 28, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231228075245/https://www.mariettatimes.com/news/local-news/2023/12/dismissal-of-lawsuit-to-keep-trump-off-w-va-ballot-appealed/ |url-status=live }}</ref> but had a case dismissed in Nevada.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Robertson |first=Nick |date=January 9, 2024 |title=Judge rejects Trump 14th Amendment claim in Nevada by GOP political competitor |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4398648-judge-rejects-trump-14th-amendment-claim-nevada/ |website=The Hill |access-date=January 21, 2024 |language=en}}</ref> By the end of January, Castro had also had cases dismissed in New Mexico<ref>{{Cite news |last=Rodriguez |first=Vince |date=January 12, 2024 |title=Judge dismisses lawsuit seeking to remove Donald Trump from ballot in New Mexico |url=https://www.koat.com/article/donald-trump-on-election-ballot-new-mexico/46366890 |website=KOAT7 |access-date=February 5, 2024 |language=en}}</ref> and Alaska,<ref>{{Cite news |last=Winger |first=Richard |date=January 29, 2024 |title=U.S. District Court in Alaska Dismisses Anti-Trump Ballot Access Case |url=https://ballot-access.org/2024/01/29/u-s-district-court-in-alaska-dismisses-anti-trump-ballot-access-case/ |access-date=January 31, 2024 |language=en}}</ref> but had appealed the ruling in New Mexico.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Wyland |first=Scott |date=January 13, 2024 |title=Judge rejects lawsuit to keep Trump off New Mexico ballot |url=https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/judge-rejects-lawsuit-to-keep-trump-off-new-mexico-ballot/article_5b908044-b24d-11ee-8a57-fb15f989cfb3.html |website=Santa Fe New Mexican |access-date=February 5, 2024 |language=en}}</ref>
On October 20, 2023, the [[United States District Court for the Central District of California|Central California U.S. District Court]] dismissed for lack of standing a lawsuit seeking to disqualify Trump via section 3 of the 14th Amendment.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Winger |first=Richard |date=January 4, 2024 |title=U.S. District Court in California Keeps Donald Trump on the Republican Presidential Primary Ballot |url=https://ballot-access.org/2024/01/04/u-s-district-court-in-california-keeps-donald-trump-on-the-republican-presidential-primary-ballot/ |website=Ballot Access News |access-date=January 26, 2024 |language=en}}</ref> On November 29, 2023, the [[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington|Eastern Washington U.S. District Court]] dismissed a claim against Trump under section 3 of the 14th Amendment that a Spokane Valley resident had filed too early for subject matter jurisdiction to apply.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Sanford |first1=Nate |date=November 30, 2023 |title=Spokane judge dismisses lawsuit attempting to remove Trump from Washington's 2024 ballot|language=en|work=Inlander|url=https://www.inlander.com/news/spokane-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-attempting-to-remove-trump-from-washingtons-2024-ballot-27051864 |access-date=December 10, 2023 |archive-date=December 9, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231209222311/https://www.inlander.com/news/spokane-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-attempting-to-remove-trump-from-washingtons-2024-ballot-27051864 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Murray|first1=Isabella |date=December 9, 2023 |title=Why are the 14th Amendment lawsuits seeking to bar Trump failing? |language=en |work=ABC News|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/14th-amendment-lawsuits-seeking-bar-trump-failing/story?id=105391248 |access-date=October 12, 2023 |archive-date=December 9, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231209011811/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/14th-amendment-lawsuits-seeking-bar-trump-failing/story?id=105391248 |url-status=live }}</ref> On December 29, 2023, the [[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia|Eastern Virginia U.S. District Court]] dismissed for lack of standing another lawsuit seeking to disqualify Trump via section 3 of the 14th Amendment.<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Anderson|first1=Natalie |date=January 5, 2024 |title=Why efforts to remove Trump from Virginia's primary ballot failed |url=https://www.pilotonline.com/2024/01/05/why-efforts-to-remove-trump-from-virginias-primary-ballot-failed/ |website=The Virginian-Pilot |access-date=January 5, 2024 |language=en |archive-date=January 6, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240106074514/https://www.pilotonline.com/2024/01/05/why-efforts-to-remove-trump-from-virginias-primary-ballot-failed/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
=== Colorado ===
{{Main|Trump v. Anderson|l1=''Trump v. Anderson''}}
{{See also|2024 United States presidential election in Colorado|2024 Colorado Republican presidential primary}}
On November 17, the [[Colorado District Court]], a state trial court, dismissed [[2024 United States presidential election in Colorado#14th Amendment lawsuit|a lawsuit]] brought by a bipartisan group of Colorado voters that sought to bar Trump from the state's presidential primaries and general election.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Wallace |first1=Sarah B. |title=Case No.: 2023CV32577 Division: 209 FINAL ORDER|url=https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf |access-date=November 27, 2023 |date=November 17, 2023 |website=Colorado Judicial Branch |archive-date=November 18, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231118203814/https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> This court was the first to rule on the merits of whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applied to Trump.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Astor |first1=Maggie |date=November 17, 2023 |title=Colorado Judge Keeps Trump on Ballot but Finds He 'Engaged in Insurrection'|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/17/us/politics/colorado-trump-14th-amendment.html |access-date=December 20, 2023 |archive-date=December 9, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231209112759/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/17/us/politics/colorado-trump-14th-amendment.html |url-status=live }}</ref> It ruled that the January 6 Capitol attack was an "insurrection" within the meaning of Section 3, and that Trump did "engage" in insurrection by inciting the attack (outside of the protections of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]]), but that Section 3 did not apply to Trump because the President of the United States is not an [[Officer of the United States]] and thus Trump had not "previously taken an oath ... as an officer of the United States," as required by Section 3.<ref name="BBC231118" /><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Cohen|first1=Marshall |date=November 18, 2023|title=Colorado judge keeps Trump on 2024 primary ballot as latest 14th Amendment case falters|language=en|work=[[CNN]]|url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment-insurrection/index.html|access-date=November 18, 2023 |archive-date=November 18, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231118001227/https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment-insurrection/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The court ordered the [[Colorado Secretary of State]] to place Trump's name on the state's presidential primary ballot.<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Richards|first1=Zoë|last2=Grumbach|first2=Gary |date=November 18, 2023 |title=Colorado judge rejects bid to keep Trump off the state's 2024 ballot |language=en |work=[[NBC News]]|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/colorado-judge-rejects-bid-keep-trump-2024-ballot-rcna125451 |access-date=November 18, 2023|archive-date=November 18, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231118001910/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/colorado-judge-rejects-bid-keep-trump-2024-ballot-rcna125451 |url-status=live }}</ref>
The plaintiffs appealed<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Riccardi |first1=Nicholas |date=November 22, 2023 |title=Colorado Supreme Court will hear appeal of ruling that Trump can stay on ballot despite insurrection|language=en |work=[[Associated Press]]|url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-appeal-colorado-7436a07c9d0259bba9a13136c541cf2c |access-date=November 24, 2023 |archive-date=November 24, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231124020230/https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-appeal-colorado-7436a07c9d0259bba9a13136c541cf2c |url-status=live }}</ref> and on December 19, the [[Colorado Supreme Court]] reversed the Colorado District Court decision that the President is not an Officer of the United States while upholding the District Court's holding that Trump had engaged in insurrection, and ordered that Trump be removed from the [[2024 Colorado Republican presidential primary]] ballot.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Astor |first1=Maggie |title=Trump Ballot Ruling – Trump Is Disqualified From the 2024 Ballot, Colorado Supreme Court Rules – Former President Donald J. Trump's campaign said it planned to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.|url=https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/12/19/us/trump-colorado-ballot-news |date=December 19, 2023 |work=[[The New York Times]]|url-status=live|archive-url=https://archive.today/20231220012941/https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/12/19/us/trump-colorado-ballot-news |archive-date=December 20, 2023 |access-date=December 19, 2023 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Cohen|first1=Marshall |date=December 19, 2023|title=Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from 2024 ballot based on 14th Amendment's 'insurrectionist ban'|publisher=CNN|url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics/trump-colorado-supreme-court-14th-amendment/index.html |access-date=December 19, 2023 |archive-date=December 19, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231219232917/https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics/trump-colorado-supreme-court-14th-amendment/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Grumbach |first1=Gary |last2=Gregorian |first2=Dareh |date=December 19, 2023 |title=Colorado Supreme Court kicks Trump off the state's 2024 ballot for violating the U.S. Constitution |publisher=NBC News|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/colorado-supreme-court-kicks-trump-states-2024-ballot-violating-us-con-rcna130484 |access-date=December 19, 2023 |archive-date=December 19, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231219232506/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/colorado-supreme-court-kicks-trump-states-2024-ballot-violating-us-con-rcna130484 |url-status=live }}</ref> Both the Colorado Republican Party and Trump appealed.<ref>{{Cite news| last1=Kruzel |first1=John |date=December 28, 2023 |title=Republicans appeal Trump Colorado ballot disqualification to US Supreme Court - attorney|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republicans-appeal-trump-colorado-ballot-disqualification-us-supreme-court-2023-12-28/ |website=Reuters |access-date=December 28, 2023 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Riccardi |first1=Nicholas |date=December 27, 2023|title=Colorado Republicans appeal decision disqualifying Donald Trump from 2024 ballot to the Supreme Court|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2023/12/27/colorado-gop-appeals-decision-disqualifying-donald-trump-2024/72043874007/ |website=USA Today|access-date=December 28, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=December 28, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231228022556/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2023/12/27/colorado-gop-appeals-decision-disqualifying-donald-trump-2024/72043874007/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Marley |first1=Patrick |last2=Marrimow |first2=Ann E. |date=January 3, 2024 |title=Trump asks Supreme Court to keep his name on Colorado ballot |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/03/trump-colorado-ballot-appeal/ |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=January 4, 2024 |language=en |archive-date=January 4, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240104072518/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/03/trump-colorado-ballot-appeal/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The Supreme Court of the United States heard the appeal on February 8, 2024.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3">{{Cite web |date=January 5, 2024 |title=Trump v. Anderson - Certiorari Granted |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/010524zr2_886b.pdf |archive-url=https://archive.today/20240105223555/https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/010524zr2_886b.pdf |archive-date=January 5, 2024 |access-date=January 5, 2024 |website=Supreme Court of the United States}}</ref>
The Colorado Supreme Court distinguished between the laws of Colorado and [[#Michigan|of Michigan]], observing that there is a statutory and constitutional role for the Colorado courts to assess the qualifications of a primary election candidate, and to order the secretary of state to exclude unqualified persons, even though no analogous responsibilities were identified by a contemporaneous Michigan Court of Appeals ruling relating to Trump.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf |title=Order Affirmed in Part and Reversed in Part |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231219232322/https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf |archive-date=December 19, 2023 |work=Anderson v. Griswold |year=2023 }}</ref>{{rp|at=decision, pp. 48–49}}
Asked whether Trump is an insurrectionist, [[President Biden]] responded "... whether the 14th Amendment applies, I'll let the court make that decision. But he certainly supported an insurrection."<ref>{{Cite news |date=December 20, 2023 |title=Remarks by President Biden After Air Force One Arrival | Milwaukee, WI |website=The White House |language=en |url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/12/20/remarks-by-president-biden-after-air-force-one-arrival-milwaukee-wi/ |access-date=January 9, 2024 |archive-date=January 9, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240109042743/https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/12/20/remarks-by-president-biden-after-air-force-one-arrival-milwaukee-wi/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
=== Illinois ===
{{distinguish|text=''[[Trump v. Anderson]]'', the US Supreme Court case addressing the same eligibility issue}}
On January 4, 2024, a petition challenging Trump's eligibility under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for both the [[2024 Illinois Republican presidential primary|primary]] and [[2024 United States presidential election in Illinois|general election]] ballots was filed with the [[Illinois State Board of Elections]] by voters Steven Daniel Anderson, Charles J. Holley, Jack L Hickman, Ralph E Cintron, and Darryl P. Baker.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Ramos |first1=Andrew |last2=Dodge |first2=John |date=January 4, 2024 |title=Voters seek to have Donald Trump removed from Illinois Primary ballot |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/voters-seek-to-have-donald-trump-removed-from-illinois-primary-ballot/ |publisher=[[WBBM-TV|WBBM]] |access-date=January 5, 2024 |language=en |archive-date=January 4, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240104235323/https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/voters-seek-to-have-donald-trump-removed-from-illinois-primary-ballot/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=McKinney|first1=Dave|date=January 4, 2024|title=Trump's candidacy is challenged by a group of Illinois residents |work=[[WBEZ]]|url=https://www.wbez.org/stories/trumps-candidacy-is-challenged-by-a-group-of-illinois-residents/6fd7f8c7-36cb-47bd-b278-f42333d3c0e5|access-date=January 4, 2024|archive-date=January 4, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240104160210/https://www.wbez.org/stories/trumps-candidacy-is-challenged-by-a-group-of-illinois-residents/6fd7f8c7-36cb-47bd-b278-f42333d3c0e5|url-status=live}}</ref> On January 26, a hearing was held.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cohen |first=Marshall |date=January 26, 2024 |title=Illinois election board hears objection to Trump candidacy based on January 6 insurrection |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/26/politics/illinois-14th-amendment-trump-january-6/index.html |website=CNN |access-date=January 27, 2024 |language=en}}</ref> The hearing officer recommended that the case be decided in a court of law, rather than by the Board of Elections, but that if the Board were to decide the case it should find that Trump had engaged in insurrection and should be excluded from the Illinois primary ballot.<ref>{{Cite news |last=McKinney |first=Dave |date=January 28, 2024 |title=Trump’s candidacy on the Illinois ballot should be decided by the courts, an elections board hearing officer says | url=https://www.wbez.org/stories/trumps-candidacy-on-the-illinois-ballot-should-be-decided-by-the-courts-hearing-officer-says/e9af3a79-7e96-4429-8bf0-282833888bb2 |website=WBEZ Chicago |access-date=January 29, 2024 |language=en}}</ref> The board unanimously ruled on January 30 to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, leaving Trump on the ballot.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cohen |first=Marshall |date=January 30, 2024 |title=Bipartisan Illinois election board dismisses 14th Amendment case against Trump |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/30/politics/donald-trump-illinois-14th-amendment/index.html |access-date=January 31, 2024 |language=en}}</ref> That same day, the plaintiffs appealed to the [[Circuit Court of Cook County|Illinois circuit court in Cook County]],<ref>{{Cite news |last=Vinicky |first=Amanda |date=January 31, 2024 |title=Effort to Remove Donald Trump From the Illinois Primary Ballot Continues in State Court |url=https://news.wttw.com/2024/01/31/effort-remove-donald-trump-illinois-primary-ballot-continues-state-court |website=WTTW News |access-date=February 2, 2024 |language=en}}</ref> under the case name ''Anderson v. Trump''.
The Circuit Court denied a motion from the Trump campaign (which requested a postponement until after the announcement of U.S. Supreme Court decision on the similar case in Colorado), and instead set hearing on the objector's claims against Trump for February 16, 2024.<ref>{{cite news|title=Trump's Illinois ballot challenge to move forward |first=Peter |last=Hancock |url=https://www.nprillinois.org/illinois/2024-02-07/trumps-illinois-ballot-challenge-to-move-forward |work=NPR-Illinois (UIS 91.9) |date=February 7, 2024}}</ref> After the hearing, in a lengthy written order on February 28, the Circuit Court ordered Trump removed from Illinois primary ballots, with a stay of the order for an appeal to be taken, or should the U.S. Supreme Court issue an inconsistent opinion. The Circuit Court agreed that as a matter of fact and law, given the submitted record, Trump is disqualified under the 14th Amendment insurrection clause, and therefore the Illinois affidavit required from Trump concerning his legal qualification for office was not and cannot be truthfully given.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/28/us/trump-removal-illinois-primary-ballot.html |title=Judge Orders Trump Removed From Illinois Primary Ballots |date=February 28, 2024 |last=Smith |first=Mitch |work=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=February 28, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Trump Ruling (PDF) |url=https://www.scribd.com/document/709350212/Trump-Ruling |access-date=February 29, 2024 |website=Scribd |language=en}}</ref> Trump has appealed.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cohen |first=Marshall |date=February 29, 2024 |title=Trump appeals judge’s decision that disqualified him from Illinois ballots |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/29/politics/trump-appeals-illinois-decision/index.html |website=CNN |access-date=February 29, 2024 |language=en}}</ref>
=== Michigan ===
In the Michigan case, ''Trump v. Benson'',{{efn|''Trump v. Benson'' (2023), 23-000151-MZ}} on November 14, Judge James Robert Redford of the [[Michigan Court of Claims]], a specialized [[trial court]] for claims against the state, dismissed a lawsuit that sought to bar Trump from the [[2024 Michigan Republican presidential nominating contests|Michigan Republican primary and caucuses]], ruling that neither the state courts nor the [[Michigan Secretary of State]] had the authority to determine whether Trump was disqualified by the 14th Amendment, because disqualification was a political question to be decided by Congress, and if Congress disqualifies Trump, the [[Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution|20th Amendment]] provides for a remedy (the vice-president assuming the presidency).<ref name="Cohen" /><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Williams |first1=Corey |last2=Riccardi |first2=Nicholas |date=November 14, 2023|title=Michigan judge says Trump can stay on primary ballot, rejecting challenge under insurrection clause |language=en |work=[[Associated Press]] |url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-ballot-michigan-b2a870f98a60dffbe4c9566cfe97457c |access-date=November 14, 2023 |archive-date=November 14, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231114220046/https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-ballot-michigan-b2a870f98a60dffbe4c9566cfe97457c |url-status=live }}</ref> He ruled that Trump's eligibility to appear on the Republican primary ballot "presents a political question that is nonjusticiable at the present time", and found that the general election question "is not ripe for adjudication at this time".<ref>{{cite web |title=Trump v. Benson, 23-000151-MZ, Michigan Court of Claims |url=https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/ab30b95f96a68053/ce7b0cfb-full.pdf |via=The New York Times |access-date=December 20, 2023 |archive-date=November 15, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231115111938/https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/ab30b95f96a68053/ce7b0cfb-full.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>
The plaintiffs appealed.<ref name="Riccardi-Michigan">{{Cite news |last1=Riccardi |first1=Nicholas |date=November 18, 2023 |title=Colorado judge finds Trump engaged in insurrection, but rejects constitutional ballot challenge|language=en|work=[[Associated Press]]|url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055 |access-date=November 18, 2023 |archive-date=November 18, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231118003915/https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Robertson">{{cite news|last1=Robertson|first1=Nick |date=November 17, 2023 |title=Activists take Trump 14th Amendment fight to Michigan Supreme Court |language=en |work=The Hill|url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4315316-activists-trump-14th-amendment-fight-michigan-supreme-court/ |access-date=December 20, 2023 |archive-date=December 3, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231203114631/https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4315316-activists-trump-14th-amendment-fight-michigan-supreme-court/ |url-status=live }}</ref> On December 14, the [[Michigan Court of Appeals]] rejected their appeal, ruling that political parties could decide eligibility for the primary ballot and that the issue of eligibility for the general election ballot was not yet ripe.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Oosting |first1=Jonathan |date=December 14, 2023 |title=Michigan appeals court: Trump 'must' be on presidential primary ballot|language=en|website=Bridge Michigan|url=https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/michigan-appeals-court-trump-must-be-presidential-primary-ballot |access-date=December 16, 2023 |archive-date=December 15, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231215134032/https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/michigan-appeals-court-trump-must-be-presidential-primary-ballot |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Murray|first1=Isabella|date=December 15, 2023 |title=Michigan Court of Appeals rules Trump can remain on 2024 GOP primary ballot |language=en |website=ABC News|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michigan-court-appeals-rules-trump-remain-2024-ballot/story?id=105675899 |access-date=December 16, 2023 |archive-date=December 16, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231216004002/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michigan-court-appeals-rules-trump-remain-2024-ballot/story?id=105675899 |url-status=live }}</ref> The plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the [[Michigan Supreme Court]].<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Pluta |first1=Rick |date=December 19, 2023 |title=Michigan Supreme Court filing seeks to block Trump from state primary ballot|url=https://www.wkar.org/2023-12-19/michigan-supreme-court-filing-seeks-to-block-trump-from-state-primary-ballot |website=WKAR |access-date=December 20, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=December 19, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231219230622/https://www.wkar.org/2023-12-19/michigan-supreme-court-filing-seeks-to-block-trump-from-state-primary-ballot |url-status=live }}</ref>
On December 27, the Michigan Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, thus keeping him on the ballot.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Williams|first1=Corey|last2=Riccardi|first2=Nicholas|date=December 27, 2023|title=Michigan Supreme Court will keep Trump on 2024 ballot|publisher=Associated Press|url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-ballot-michigan-colorado-b5a5d9ffa75efa63ab4780b04329e2a2|access-date=December 27, 2023|archive-date=December 27, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231227143109/https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-ballot-michigan-colorado-b5a5d9ffa75efa63ab4780b04329e2a2|url-status=live}}</ref>
=== Minnesota ===
On November 8, the [[Minnesota Supreme Court]], the state's highest court, dismissed a lawsuit brought by a bipartisan group of Minnesota voters that sought to bar Trump from the [[2024 Minnesota Republican presidential primary|Minnesota Republican primary]], ruling that no Minnesota state law prohibits political parties from listing ineligible candidates on their primary ballots. The court did not address whether the [[January 6 United States Capitol attack]] was an "insurrection," and whether Trump "engaged" in it, within the meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The court ruled that the challengers could file a new lawsuit seeking to bar Trump from the [[2024 United States presidential election in Minnesota|Minnesota general election ballot]] if he is nominated as the Republican candidate for the general election.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Karnowski |first1=Steve |last2=Riccardi|first2=Nicholas|date=November 8, 2023 |title=Minnesota Supreme Court dismisses 'insurrection clause' challenge and allows Trump on primary ballot |language=en |work=[[Associated Press]]|url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-election-president-f6b72c94bb351c1b870d4884e54f6a75|access-date=November 18, 2023 |archive-date=November 18, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231118005607/https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-election-president-f6b72c94bb351c1b870d4884e54f6a75 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Cohen |first1=Marshall |date=November 8, 2023 |title=Minnesota Supreme Court won't remove Trump from GOP primary ballot in 14th Amendment challenge|language=en|work=[[CNN]]|url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/08/politics/minnesota-14th-amendment-trump/index.html |access-date=November 9, 2023 |archive-date=November 9, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231109000327/https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/08/politics/minnesota-14th-amendment-trump/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
=== Oregon ===
In early December 2023, an advocacy group filed a lawsuit with the [[Oregon Supreme Court]] to remove Trump from the [[2024 Oregon Republican presidential primary|Oregon Republican primary]] ballot.<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Shumway|first1=Julia |date=December 6, 2023 |title=Group sues Oregon Secretary of State Griffin-Valade to keep Trump off ballot |language=en |work=Oregon Capital Chronicle|url=https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2023/12/06/group-sues-oregon-secretary-of-state-griffin-valade-to-keep-trump-off-ballot/ |access-date=December 7, 2023 |archive-date=December 7, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231207015757/https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2023/12/06/group-sues-oregon-secretary-of-state-griffin-valade-to-keep-trump-off-ballot/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Cohen |first1=Michael |date=December 6, 2023 |title=Another 14th Amendment challenge pops up in Oregon |language=en |work=[[CNN]] |url=https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/colorado-trump-14th-amendment-12-06-23/h_7638191da48331ce65087e2c93db15e7 |access-date=December 7, 2023 |archive-date=December 7, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231207180428/https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/colorado-trump-14th-amendment-12-06-23/h_7638191da48331ce65087e2c93db15e7 |url-status=live }}</ref> The group sued [[Oregon Secretary of State]] [[LaVonne Griffin-Valade]] after she said on November 30 that she did not have authority over who appears on the ballot for a primary election.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Sources |first1=Central Oregon Daily News |date=December 29, 2023|title=2 states have banned Trump from ballot. Where does Oregon stand?|url=https://centraloregondaily.com/donald-trump-oregon-primary-ballot-status/ |access-date=December 29, 2023 |website=Central Oregon Daily |language=en-US|archive-date=December 29, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231229173928/https://centraloregondaily.com/donald-trump-oregon-primary-ballot-status/ |url-status=live }}</ref> On January 12, 2024, the Oregon Supreme Court declined to hear the case and did not rule on its merits, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's ongoing consideration of ''Trump v. Anderson''.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Cohen |first=Marshall |date=January 12, 2024 |title=Oregon Supreme Court won't remove Trump from ballot for now, says it's waiting on SCOTUS |url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/12/politics/oregon-supreme-court-trump-ballot-2024/index.html |access-date=January 12, 2024 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref>
=== Other states ===
In August 2023, a lawsuit seeking to bar Trump from the [[2024 California Republican presidential primary|California Republican primary]] ballot under the 14th amendment was filed in [[Alameda County Superior Court]], and, in October 2023, another was filed in [[Los Angeles County Superior Court]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Woolfolk |first=John |date=December 23, 2023| title=Can California really keep Trump off the ballot? |url=https://www.timesheraldonline.com/2023/12/23/can-california-really-keep-trump-off-the-ballot-2/ |website=Time-Herald |access-date=March 1, 2024 |language=en}}</ref>
On November 1, 2023, a lawsuit aiming to bar Trump and [[Cynthia Lummis]] from the ballot was filed in the [[Wyoming District Courts|Wyoming District Court]] in [[Albany County, Wyoming|Albany County]].<ref>{{Cite news |last1=McFarland |first1=Clair |date=December 20, 2023 |title=Wyoming Man Suing To Keep Trump Off Ballot OK With Former President Joining Lawsuit |url=https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/12/19/wyoming-man-suing-to-keep-trump-off-ballot-ok-with-former-president-joining-lawsuit/ |website=Cowboy State Daily |access-date=January 5, 2024 |language=en |archive-date=January 5, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240105120935/https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/12/19/wyoming-man-suing-to-keep-trump-off-ballot-ok-with-former-president-joining-lawsuit/ |url-status=live }}</ref> On January 4, 2024, it was dismissed.<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Bickerton|first1=James|date=January 5, 2024 |title=Judge Shuts Down Attempt to Kick Donald Trump Off Ballot |url=https://www.newsweek.com/judge-shuts-down-attempt-kick-donald-trump-off-ballot-1858087 |website=Newsweek|access-date=January 6, 2024 |language=en |archive-date=January 5, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240105230357/https://www.newsweek.com/judge-shuts-down-attempt-kick-donald-trump-off-ballot-1858087 |url-status=live }}</ref> The plaintiff has appealed.<ref>{{Cite news |last=McFarland |first=Clair |date=January 19, 2024 |title=Laramie Attorney Appeals To Wyoming Supreme Court To Keep Trump Off Ballot |url=https://cowboystatedaily.com/2024/01/18/laramie-attorney-appeals-to-wyoming-supreme-court-to-keep-trump-off-ballot/ |website=Cowboy News Daily |access-date=January 26, 2024 |language=en}}</ref>
On December 22, a lawsuit seeking to bar Trump from the [[2024 Louisiana Republican presidential primary|Louisiana Republican primary]] ballot was filed in the 19th Judicial District Court of that state.<ref>{{Cite news |date=December 27, 2023 |last1=Daly |first1=Ken |last2=Joseph |first2=Chris |title=Chalmette woman files suit seeking to remove Trump from Louisiana ballot |url=https://www.fox8live.com/2023/12/27/chalmette-woman-files-suit-seeking-remove-trump-louisiana-ballot/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240103235129/https://www.fox8live.com/2023/12/27/chalmette-woman-files-suit-seeking-remove-trump-louisiana-ballot/ |archive-date=January 3, 2024 |access-date=January 5, 2024 |website=Fox8 |language=en}}</ref> On January 5, 2024, it was withdrawn.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Winger |first=Richard |date=January 18, 2024 |title=Louisiana Anti-Trump Ballot Access Lawsuit Dropped |url=https://ballot-access.org/2024/01/18/louisiana-anti-trump-ballot-access-dropped/ |website=Ballot Access News |access-date=January 31, 2024 |language=en}}</ref>
In late December 2023, Kirk Bangstad, a local [[brewery]] owner, filed a complaint with the [[Wisconsin Elections Commission]] to remove Trump from the [[2024 Wisconsin Republican presidential primary|primary]] and [[2024 United States presidential election in Wisconsin|general election ballots in Wisconsin]], which dismissed the complaint immediately by recusing itself.<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Gunn|first1=Erik|date=December 28, 2023 |title=Brewery owner, political fundraiser says he'll sue to block Trump from Wisconsin's 2024 ballot|url=https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2023/12/28/brewery-owner-political-fundraiser-says-hell-sue-to-block-trump-from-wisconsins-2024-ballot/ |website=Wisconsin Examiner|access-date=December 30, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=December 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231230104947/https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2023/12/28/brewery-owner-political-fundraiser-says-hell-sue-to-block-trump-from-wisconsins-2024-ballot/|url-status=live }}</ref> On January 5, Bangstad filed a related lawsuit in the [[Wisconsin Circuit Court]] in [[Dane County]].<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Cadigan |first1=Benjamin |last2=The Associated Press |date=January 5, 2024 |title=Lawsuit filed to bar Trump from Wisconsin ballot |url=https://www.weau.com/2024/01/05/lawsuit-filed-bar-trump-wisconsin-ballot/ |website=WEAU News |access-date=January 6, 2024|language=en|archive-date=January 6, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240106004300/https://www.weau.com/2024/01/05/lawsuit-filed-bar-trump-wisconsin-ballot/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
By early January 2024, a lawsuit aiming to bar Trump from the ballot under the 14th amendment was filed in the [[Circuit_court_(Florida)|Florida circuit court]] in [[Broward County, Florida|Broward County]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Man |first=Anthony |date=January 3, 2024 |title=South Florida activist asks judge to keep Trump off state’s election ballot |url=https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2024/01/03/south-florida-activist-asks-judge-to-keep-trump-off-states-election-ballot/ |website=South Florida SunSentinel |access-date=February 2, 2024 |language=en}}</ref>
In early January 2024, a pair of activists who'd had a case denied in federal court for lack of standing there filed a similar lawsuit in the [[Virginia circuit court]] in [[Richmond County, Virginia|Richmond County]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Childress |first=Kelsey |title=Virginia activists file lawsuit in state court to remove former President Trump from election ballot |url=https://wjla.com/news/local/virginia-activists-roy-perry-bey-carlos-howard-file-lawsuit-state-court-remove-former-president-donald-trump-election-ballot-2024 |access-date=February 18, 2024 |language=en}}</ref>
A lawsuit concerning Trump's inclusion on the [[2024 Washington Republican presidential primary|Washington state primary ballot]] was to be heard in [[List of Superior Court districts in Washington|Kitsap County Superior Court]] on January 16, 2024,<ref>{{cite news|publisher=[[KHQ-TV]]|location=Spokane|title= Lawsuit to remove Donald Trump from Washington presidential primary ballot to get hearing|author=Noah Corrin |date= January 12, 2024|url=https://www.khq.com/news/lawsuit-to-remove-donald-trump-from-washington-presidential-primary-ballot-to-get-hearing/article_6dbc72de-b1ab-11ee-bb83-bb8599195d29.html }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|agency=Associated Press|publisher=KING-TV|location=Seattle|title=Donald Trump's spot on Washington primary ballot to be decided in Kitsap County court|quote=The challenge contests the eligibility of Trump under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.|author=Alex Didion|date=January 16, 2024|url=https://www.king5.com/article/news/politics/donald-trump-washington-primary-ballot-kitsap-county-court/281-93ae6239-5e93-4d3e-9878-5ef2883afe82}}</ref> but the judge decided that the case should be moved to [[Thurston County, Washington|Thurston County]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Lotmore |first=Mario |date= January 17, 2024| title=Judge declines case to remove Trump from Washington state ballot |url=https://lynnwoodtimes.com/2024/01/16/trump-ballot-240116/ |website=Lynwood Times |access-date=January 17, 2024 |language=en}}</ref> Thurston County judge Mary Sue Wilson ruled on January 18 that Trump will stay on the Washington primary ballot.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4416366-trump-washington-state-ballot-challenge/|title=Trump will stay on ballot in Washington state|last=Nazzaro|first=Miranda|date=January 18, 2024|access-date=January 18, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Cornfield |first=Jerry |date=January 18, 2024 |title=Judge denies request to remove Trump from WA presidential primary ballot |url=https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2024/01/18/judge-denies-request-to-remove-trump-from-wa-presidential-primary-ballot/ |access-date=January 21, 2024 |language=en}}</ref>
== State election agencies ==
Some [[Secretary of state (U.S. state government)|secretaries of state]], who oversee elections in states, have begun preparing for potential challenges relating to whether Trump might be excluded from November 2024 ballots.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Hillyard |first1=Vaughn |date=August 29, 2023 |title=Secretaries of state get ready for possible challenges to Trump's ballot access |work=NBC News|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/secretaries-state-get-ready-possible-challenges-trumps-ballot-access-rcna102440 |access-date=December 20, 2023 |archive-date=December 3, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231203210642/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/secretaries-state-get-ready-possible-challenges-trumps-ballot-access-rcna102440 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Murray |first1=Isabella |last2=Demissie |first2=Hannah |date=September 1, 2023 |title=State election officials prepare for efforts to disqualify Trump under 14th Amendment |work=ABC News|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/state-election-officials-prepare-efforts-disqualify-trump-14th/story?id=102833123 |access-date=December 20, 2023 |archive-date=December 18, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231218081907/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/state-election-officials-prepare-efforts-disqualify-trump-14th/story?id=102833123 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Healy |first1=Jack |last2=Betts |first2=Anna |last3=Baker |first3=Mike |last4=Cowan |first4=Jill |date=December 30, 2023 |title=Would Keeping Trump Off the Ballot Hurt or Help Democracy? |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/30/us/trump-maine-democracy.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-trump-colorado-ballot |website=The New York Times |access-date=January 4, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=January 3, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240103234551/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/30/us/trump-maine-democracy.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-trump-colorado-ballot |url-status=live }}</ref> In September 2023, [[New Hampshire Secretary of State]] [[David Scanlan]] stated he would not invoke the 14th Amendment to remove Trump from the [[2024 New Hampshire Republican presidential primary|New Hampshire Republican primary]] ballot.<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Ramer|first1=Holly|last2=Riccardi |first2=Nicholas |date=September 13, 2023 |title=New Hampshire secretary of state won't block Trump from ballot in key presidential primary state |language=en |work=[[Associated Press]]|url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-new-hampshire-gop-ballot-block-consitution-insurrection-56f75ee5d650988d304308c5c912e9b2 |access-date=November 18, 2023 |archive-date=November 18, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231118013731/https://apnews.com/article/trump-new-hampshire-gop-ballot-block-consitution-insurrection-56f75ee5d650988d304308c5c912e9b2 |url-status=live }}</ref> In December 2023, [[Secretary of State of California|California Secretary of State]] [[Shirley Weber]] also declined to remove Trump from the [[2024 California Republican presidential primary|California Republican primary]] ballot.<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Mason|first1=Melanie|last2=Gardiner|first2=Dustin |date=December 29, 2023 |title='State of resistance' no more: California on sidelines of Trump ballot fight|url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/29/california-trump-ballot-fight-00133340 |website=Politico |access-date=December 31, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=December 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231230210610/https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/29/california-trump-ballot-fight-00133340 |url-status=live }}</ref>
=== Maine ===
{{See also|2024 United States presidential election in Maine|2024 Maine Republican presidential primary}}
In early December 2023, five Maine voters submitted three challenges to Maine Secretary of State [[Shenna Bellows]] contesting Trump's eligibility to be included on the ballot for Maine's 2024 Republican presidential preference primary.<ref name="me_hearing_pr">{{cite web|title=Hearing scheduled for challenges to Trump primary nomination petition|url=https://www.maine.gov/sos/news/2023/HearingScheduledChallengesTrumpPrimaryNominationPetition.html|website=Maine Department of the Secretary of State|access-date=January 2, 2024|date=December 11, 2023|archive-date=December 22, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231222175236/https://www.maine.gov/sos/news/2023/HearingScheduledChallengesTrumpPrimaryNominationPetition.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Bartow |first1=Adam |title=Multiple petitions seek to remove Donald Trump from Maine primary ballot|language=en|website=WMTV |url=https://www.wmtw.com/article/multiple-petitions-seek-remove-donald-trump-maine-presidential-primary-ballot/46093547 |access-date=December 20, 2023 |archive-date=December 18, 2023 |date=December 11, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231218054100/https://www.wmtw.com/article/multiple-petitions-seek-remove-donald-trump-maine-presidential-primary-ballot/46093547 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Montellaro|first1=Zach|date=December 15, 2023 |title=Maine's elections chief publicly grapples with whether 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump |language=en |website=Politico |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/15/maine-14th-amendment-trump-00132136|access-date=December 16, 2023 |archive-date=December 16, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231216000233/https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/15/maine-14th-amendment-trump-00132136 |url-status=live }}</ref> Two of these challenges asserted Trump was ineligible pursuant to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution, while a third challenge focused on the [[Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution|22nd Amendment]]'s ban on a "person . . . be[ing] elected to the office of the President more than twice" and claimed that Trump is ineligible to be elected president in 2024 because he claims to have already been elected to the presidency twice (in 2016 and 2020).<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Davis |first1=Emma |date=December 11, 2023 |title=Mainers challenge Donald Trump's election eligibility |language=en |website=News From The States|url=https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/mainers-challenge-donald-trumps-election-eligibility |access-date=December 16, 2023 |archive-date=December 15, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231215225347/https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/mainers-challenge-donald-trumps-election-eligibility |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Davis |first1=Emma |date=December 15, 2023 |title=Sec. of State Bellows hears arguments for and against challenges to Trump's ballot eligibility|language=en|website=Maine Morning Star|url=https://mainemorningstar.com/2023/12/15/sec-of-state-bellows-hears-arguments-in-hearing-on-challenges-to-trumps-ballot-eligibility/ |access-date=December 16, 2023 |archive-date=December 16, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231216034809/https://mainemorningstar.com/2023/12/15/sec-of-state-bellows-hears-arguments-in-hearing-on-challenges-to-trumps-ballot-eligibility/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Russell |first1=Jenna |date=December 22, 2023 |title=Maine's Secretary of State to Decide Whether Trump Can Stay on Ballot|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/us/maine-trump-ballot.html |website=The New York Times |access-date=December 26, 2023 |language=en|archive-date=December 25, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231225191819/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/us/maine-trump-ballot.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
On December 15, Bellows held a hearing on the challenges she was presented with.<ref name="me_hearing_pr" /><ref>{{cite web |title=Hearing Regarding Challenges to Trump Primary Nomination Petition |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvBkgW893g8 |website=Youtube |publisher=Maine Department of the Secretary of State |access-date=January 2, 2024 |date=December 15, 2023 |archive-date=January 1, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240101222130/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvBkgW893g8 |url-status=live }}</ref> On December 28, in a 34-page order, she ruled that Trump was ineligible to be listed on the Maine primary ballot pursuant to the 14th Amendment.<ref name="me_decision_pr">{{Cite web |title=Maine Secretary of State Decision in Challenge to Trump Presidential Primary Petitions|url=https://www.maine.gov/sos/news/2023/BellowsDecisionChallengeTrumpPrimaryPetitionsDec2023.html |access-date=December 29, 2023 |website=maine.gov |archive-date=December 29, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231229010745/https://www.maine.gov/sos/news/2023/BellowsDecisionChallengeTrumpPrimaryPetitionsDec2023.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Specifically, she found that the former president "used a false narrative of election fraud to inflame his supporters" and "engaged in insurrection or rebellion."<ref>{{Cite news |date=December 28, 2023 |title=Trump blocked from Maine presidential ballot in 2024 |language=en-GB |work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67837639 |access-date=December 29, 2023 |archive-date=December 29, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231229000951/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67837639 |url-status=live |first=Max |last=Matza }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=December 29, 2023 |title=Maine's top election official rules Trump ineligible for 2024 primary ballot|first=Alex |last=Seitz-Wald |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/maines-top-election-official-rules-trump-ineligible-2024-primary-ballo-rcna131375 |access-date=December 29, 2023|website=NBC News|language=en|archive-date=December 29, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231229002413/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/maines-top-election-official-rules-trump-ineligible-2024-primary-ballo-rcna131375|url-status=live }}</ref> Bellows further concluded that the 22nd Amendment did not prevent Trump from running for president in 2024.<ref name="me_decision_pr" /> Bellows stayed Trump's removal from the ballot pending the earlier of the resolution of any appeal Trump might make to the Maine Superior Court or the expiration of his deadline to make such an appeal.<ref name="me_decision_pr" /><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Montellaro |first1=Zach |date=December 28, 2023|title=Maine strips Trump from the ballot, inflaming legal war over his candidacy|url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/28/maine-kicks-trump-off-ballot-under-14th-amendment-00133294 |website=Politico |access-date=December 29, 2023|language=en|archive-date=December 29, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231229014234/https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/28/maine-kicks-trump-off-ballot-under-14th-amendment-00133294 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Freiman |first1=Jordan |date=December 28, 2023 |title=Maine secretary of state disqualifies Trump from primary ballot|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-maine-primary-ballot-disqualified-secretary-of-state-shenna-bellows/|website=CBS News |access-date=December 29, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=December 29, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231229014916/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-maine-primary-ballot-disqualified-secretary-of-state-shenna-bellows/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
On January 2, 2024, Trump appealed Bellows' decision to the [[Maine Superior Court]] in [[Kennebec County, Maine|Kennebec County]].<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Ohm |first1=Rachel |date=January 2, 2024 |title=Trump appeals Maine secretary of state's decision to bar him from primary ballot|url=https://www.pressherald.com/2024/01/02/appeal-filed-in-response-to-maine-secretary-of-states-decision-to-bar-trump-from-primary-ballot/ |website=Portland Press Herald |access-date=January 3, 2024 |language=en |archive-date=January 2, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240102232548/https://www.pressherald.com/2024/01/02/appeal-filed-in-response-to-maine-secretary-of-states-decision-to-bar-trump-from-primary-ballot/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Marley |first1=Patrick |date=February 2, 2024 |title=Trump appeals Maine's decision to ban him from the primary ballot|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/02/trump-maine-ballot-appeal-14th-amendment/ |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=January 3, 2024 |language=en}}</ref> On January 17, the Superior Court extended the stay of the effects of Bellows' decision by remanding the case back to her for reconsideration after the U.S. Supreme Court rules in ''Trump v. Anderson''.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Schonfeld |first=Zach |date=January 17, 2024 |title=Maine judge defers decision on Trump 14th Amendment question until Supreme Court rules |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4414169-maine-judge-trump-14th-amendment-primary-ballot-supreme-court/ |access-date=January 17, 2024 |work=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Murphy |first=Michaela |date=January 17, 2024|title=Order and Decision (M.R. Civ. P. 80C) |url=https://www.courts.maine.gov/news/trump/order-and-decision.pdf |access-date=January 17, 2024 |work=courts.maine.gov}}</ref> Bellows appealed to the [[Maine Supreme Judicial Court]] on January 19,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maine-trump-ballot-eligibility-state-supreme-court-to-review/|title=Maine's top election official asks state supreme court to review Trump ballot eligibility decision|work=[[CBS News]]|last=Quinn|first=Melissa|date=January 19, 2024|accessdate=January 22, 2024|archive-date=January 21, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240121232110/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maine-trump-ballot-eligibility-state-supreme-court-to-review/|url-status=live}}</ref> though the appeal was dismissed on January 24.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-ballot-insurrection-amendment-2240b954d91c442b5644c74b2823f2c0|title=Maine’s top court dismisses appeal of judge’s decision on Trump ballot status|work=[[Associated Press]]|date=January 24, 2024|accessdate=January 24, 2024|last=Sharp|first=David}}</ref>
=== Massachusetts ===
While [[Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts|Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth]] [[William F. Galvin]] has stated that Trump will appear on the [[2024 Massachusetts Republican presidential primary|Massachusetts Republican primary]] ballot barring a court order,<ref>{{cite news|title=Galvin: Trump on track to be on the Mass. primary ballot, barring court orders|date=December 21, 2023|publisher=[[WBUR-FM|WBUR]]|url=https://www.wbur.org/news/2023/12/21/galvin-trump-mass-primary-ballot-colorado-courts|access-date=January 4, 2024|archive-date=January 4, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240104234628/https://www.wbur.org/news/2023/12/21/galvin-trump-mass-primary-ballot-colorado-courts|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Doran|first1=Sam|date=January 2, 2024|title=Galvin says Trump will appear on Mass. primary ballot|publisher=WBUR|agency=[[State House News Service]]|url=https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/01/02/trump-name-massachusetts-primary-ballot|access-date=January 4, 2024|archive-date=January 3, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240103001608/https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/01/02/trump-name-massachusetts-primary-ballot|url-status=live}}</ref> a group of Massachusetts voters filed a petition with the Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission to remove Trump from the primary and [[2024 United States presidential election in Massachusetts|general election]] ballots under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment on January 4, 2024.<ref>{{cite news|title=Group of Massachusetts voters file to remove Former President Trump from ballot|publisher=[[WHDH (TV)|WHDH]]|agency=State House News Service|url=https://whdh.com/news/group-of-massachusetts-voters-file-to-remove-former-president-trump-from-ballot/|date=January 4, 2024 |access-date=January 4, 2024 |archive-date=January 4, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240104231306/https://whdh.com/news/group-of-massachusetts-voters-file-to-remove-former-president-trump-from-ballot/|url-status=live}}</ref> On January 18, an initial hearing was held.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Kwangwari |first1=Munashe |last2=Klein |first2=Asher |date=January 18, 2024 |title=Commission considers objections to Trump being on Mass. primary ballot |url=https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/commission-to-consider-objections-to-trump-being-on-mass-ballot/3250659/ |publisher=[[WBTS-CD|WBTS]] |access-date=January 20, 2024|language=en}}</ref> On January 22, the Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission dismissed the primary ballot challenge citing a lack of jurisdiction.<ref>{{cite news|last=Ganley|first=Shaun|date=January 22, 2024|title=Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission rejects attempt to remove Trump from primary ballot|publisher=[[WCVB-TV|WCVB]]|url=https://www.wcvb.com/article/massachusetts-donald-trump-presidential-primary-ballot-decision/46494516|access-date=January 22, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Lavery|first=Tréa|date=January 22, 2024|title=Donald Trump will appear on the ballot in Mass. Republican presidential primary|work=[[The Republican (Springfield, Massachusetts)|Springfield Republican]]|publisher=[[Advance Publications]]|url=https://www.masslive.com/politics/2024/01/donald-trump-will-appear-on-the-ballot-in-mass-presidential-primary.html|access-date=January 22, 2024}}</ref> On January 23, the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the [[Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=DeGray |first=Nick |date=January 24, 2024 |title=Appeal filed with Supreme Judicial Court to remove Trump from Massachusetts ballot |url=https://www.wwlp.com/news/state-politics/appeal-filed-with-supreme-judicial-court-to-remove-trump-from-massachusetts-ballot/ |publisher=[[WWLP]]|access-date=January 27, 2024 |language=en}}</ref> On January 29, the case was dismissed for lack of ripeness.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Lisinski |first=Chris |date=January 29, 2024 |title=Massachusetts Judge keeps former President Donald Trump on the ballot for 2024 election |url=https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/massachusetts-judge-keeps-former-president-donald-trump-ballot-2024-election/MUGHWJB6UVHDXNULMSXB6RW6IQ/ |publisher=[[WFXT]]| agency=State House News Service |access-date=January 31, 2024 |language=en}}</ref> The plaintiffs appealed.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Winger |first=Richard |title=Justice Frank Gaziano of the Massachusetts Supreme Court Leaves Trump on Ballot, but Objectors Then Ask Full Court to Hear Their Appeal |url=https://ballot-access.org/2024/01/30/justice-frank-gaziano-of-the-massachusetts-supreme-court-leaves-trump-on-ballot-but-objectors-then-ask-full-court-to-hear-their-appeal/ |website=Ballot Access News |access-date=January 31, 2024 |language=en}}</ref>
===Other states===
On December 20, 2023, a voter challenge filed with the [[North Carolina State Board of Elections]] against Trump's candidacy in the [[2024 North Carolina Republican presidential primary|North Carolina Republican primary]] citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was denied with the State Board citing a lack of jurisdiction to hear the complaint. On December 29, the plaintiff appealed to the [[North Carolina Superior Court]] in [[Wake County, North Carolina|Wake County]].<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Willis |first1=Amy Passaretti |date=January 3, 2024 |title=NC voter appeals state BOE's denial of Trump's candidacy to superior court |url=https://portcitydaily.com/latest-news/2024/01/03/nc-voter-appeals-state-boes-denial-of-trumps-candidacy-to-superior-court/ |website=Port City Daily |access-date=January 5, 2024 |language=en |archive-date=January 5, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240105020611/https://portcitydaily.com/latest-news/2024/01/03/nc-voter-appeals-state-boes-denial-of-trumps-candidacy-to-superior-court/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
On February 13, a challenge citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against Trump's candidacy in the [[2024 Indiana Republican presidential primary|Indiana Republican primary]] citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was filed with the Indiana Election Commission.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Carlony |first=Brittany |title=Donald Trump faces a challenge aiming to keep him off Indiana ballot. Here's why |url=https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/02/16/jan-6-subject-of-trump-primary-ballot-challenge-in-indiana/72631205007/ |website=IndyStar |access-date=February 17, 2024 |language=en}}</ref> On February 27, it was denied.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Smith |first=Brandon |date=February 27, 2024 |title=Donald Trump remains on Indiana ballot after state election board dismisses challenge |url=https://www.wbaa.org/local-news/2024-02-27/donald-trump-remains-on-indiana-ballot-after-state-election-board-dismisses-challenge |website=WBAA |access-date=February 29, 2024 |language=en}}</ref>
==Public opinion==
{{see also|Political polarization in the United States#Voting patterns|Red states and blue states#Polarization|Pluralistic ignorance|False consensus effect|False-uniqueness effect|Spiral of silence}}
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
|+ Investigations, indictments, trials, and campaign announcement timeline
|-
! Event !! Date
|-
| Election Day of 2020 presidential election || November 3, 2020
|-
| January 6 Capitol attack during 2021 Electoral College vote count || January 6, 2021
|-
| [[United States Justice Department investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election|Justice Department investigation of Capitol attack and 2020 election obstruction]] opened || January 7, 2021
|-
| House January 6 Committee formed || July 1, 2021
|-
| [[FBI search of Mar-a-Lago]] || August 8, 2022
|-
| [[New York criminal investigation of The Trump Organization|Criminal trial]] of [[Trump Organization]] heard by the [[New York Supreme Court]] begins || August 18, 2022
|-
| [[Attorney General of New York|New York Attorney General]] announces [[New York civil investigation of The Trump Organization|civil fraud lawsuit]] against Trump Organization || September 21, 2022
|-
| [[Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign]] officially announced || November 15, 2022
|-
| Smith special counsel investigation opened || November 18, 2022
|-
| Trump Organization convicted in New York criminal trial || December 6, 2022
|-
| House January 6 Committee refers Trump to Justice Department for prosecution || December 19, 2022
|-
| House January 6 Committee releases final report || December 22, 2022
|-
| New York Supreme Court indicts Trump in [[Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York|falsified business records case]] || March 30, 2023
|-
| Southern Florida U.S. District Court indicts Trump in [[Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (classified documents case)|classified documents case]] || June 8, 2023
|-
| District of Columbia U.S. District Court indicts Trump in election obstruction case || August 1, 2023
|-
| [[Fulton County, Georgia|Fulton County]] [[Georgia Superior Courts|Superior Court]] indicts Trump in [[Georgia election racketeering prosecution|Georgia election racketeering case]] || August 14, 2023
|-
| New York civil fraud lawsuit trial begins || October 2, 2023
|-
|}
The following tables present a survey of the results from various polls. Due to the substance and exact wording of the poll questions and response options provided to survey respondents varying by poll, this summary should be considered as approximative. For the precise results (which often cover more alternatives than the summary does), see the separate polls.
{| class="wikitable"
|+style="font-size:100%" | January 6 investigations, charges, or conviction disqualify Trump from Presidency under 14th Amendment by states or Supreme Court
|- valign= bottom
! style="width:250px;"| Poll source
! style="width:180px;"| Date(s) administered
! class=small | Sample size
! <small>MoE</small>
! style="width:100px;"| % agree
! style="width:100px;"| % disagree
! style="width:100px;"| % no opinion
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20220927_yahoo_toplines_1.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo! News 9-30-2022">{{cite news|last=Romano|first=Andrew|date=September 30, 2022|title=Poll: Most U.S. voters now say Trump should not be allowed to serve as president again|website=Yahoo! News|publisher=Yahoo! Inc.|url=https://news.yahoo.com/poll-most-us-voters-now-say-trump-should-not-be-allowed-to-serve-as-president-again-100014416.html|access-date=January 24, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-September2022|"59. Given what we know about the ongoing investigations into Donald Trump, do you think he should be allowed to serve as president again in the future?"}}
| align=center| September 23–27, 2022
| align=center| 1,566 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''50%'''
| align=center| 31%
| align=center| 19%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20221017_yahoo_toplines.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-October2022|"49. Given what we know about the ongoing investigations into Donald Trump, do you think he should be allowed to serve as president again in the future?"}}
| align=center| October 13–17, 2022
| align=center| 1,629 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''49%'''
| align=center| 34%
| align=center| 16%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230227_yahoo_toplines.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-February2023|"41. Given what we know about his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, should Donald Trump be allowed to serve as president again in the future?"}}
| align=center| February 23–27, 2023
| align=center| 1,516 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''49%'''
| align=center| 37%
| align=center| 14%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us03292023_ufuy73.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 3-29-2023">{{cite press release|title=Mixed Signals On Trump: Majority Says Criminal Charges Should Disqualify '24 Run, Popularity Is Unchanged, Leads DeSantis By Double Digits, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds|date=March 29, 2023|publisher=Quinnipiac University|url=https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3870|access-date=January 24, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-March2023|"33. As you may know, there are multiple state and federal criminal investigations of former President Donald Trump. If there are criminal charges filed against him, do you think those criminal charges should disqualify him from running for president again, or don't you think so?"}}
| align=center| March 23–27, 2023
| align=center| 1,788 adults
| align=center| ± 2.3%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''57%'''
| align=center| 38%
| align=center| 5%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Trump%20Indictment%20Wave%205%20Federal%20Charges%20Topline%2008%2003%202023_0.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Reuters 8-3-2023">{{cite news|last=Lange|first=Jason|title=About half of US Republicans could spurn Trump if he is convicted, Reuters/Ipsos poll shows|date=August 3, 2023|website=Reuters|publisher=Thomson Reuters|url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/about-half-us-republicans-could-spurn-trump-if-he-is-convicted-reutersipsos-poll-2023-08-03/|access-date=January 24, 2024}}</ref><ref name="Ipsos 8-3-2023">{{cite press release|last1=Lohr|first1=Annaleise Azevedo|last2=Jackson|first2=Chris|last3=Feldman|first3=Sarah|date=August 3, 2023|title=Reuters/Ipsos Survey: Despite indictments, Trump leads primary field as DeSantis loses support|publisher=Ipsos|url=https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reutersipsos-survey-despite-indictments-trump-leads-primary-field-desantis-loses-support|access-date=January 24, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-August2023-TM3138Y23|"TM3138Y23. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statement: Donald Trump should be disqualified from running for president because of the criminal charges against him"}}
| align=center| August 2–3, 2023
| align=center| 1,005 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''59%'''
| align=center| 32%
| align=center| 8%
|-
| [https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23936298/cnn-poll-on-gop-primary-voters.pdf CNN/SSRS]<ref name="CNN 9-5-2023">{{cite news|last1=Agiesta|first1=Jennifer|last2=Edwards-Levy|first2=Ariel|date=September 5, 2023|title=CNN Poll: GOP voters' broad support for Trump holds, with less than half seriously worried criminal charges will harm his 2024 chances|publisher=CNN|url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/05/politics/cnn-poll-trump-primary-criminal-charges/index.html|access-date=January 24, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=CNN-SSRS-September2023|"Q38. As you may have heard, Donald Trump is facing criminal charges in four separate cases. For each of these cases, please indicate whether you think, if true, those charges (should disqualify Trump from the presidency), (cast doubts on his fitness for the job, but are not disqualifying, or (are not relevant to his fitness for the presidency)? Charges related to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol"}}
| align=center| August 25–31, 2023
| align=center| 1,503 adults
| align=center| ± 3.5%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''51%'''
| align=center| 49%
| align=center| —
|-
| [https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/0cc7a4b2-8e80-46f3-9c78-3ff36f7a08ee.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_4 Washington Post/ABC News]<ref name="Washington Post 9-29-2023">{{cite news|last1=Balz|first1=Dan|last2=Clement|first2=Scott|last3=Guskin|first3=Emily|date=September 29, 2023|title=Post-ABC poll: Biden faces criticism on economy, immigration and age|work=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/24/biden-trump-poll-2024-election/|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=WashingtonPost-ABCNews-September2023|"16. The U.S. Constitution prohibits people who have taken an oath to the Constitution from holding public office if they have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States. Do you think Trump should or should not be prohibited from serving as president under this provision?"}}
| align=center| September 15–20, 2023
| align=center| 1,006 adults
| align=center| ± 3.5%
| align=center| 44%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''51%'''
| align=center| 5%
|-
| [https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000018a-e137-d2cf-a3af-fbb729e80000 Morning Consult/Politico]<ref name="Politico 9-29-2023">{{cite news|last=Montellaro|first=Zach|date=September 29, 2023|title=Poll: Majority of voters would support disqualifying Trump under 14th Amendment|website=Politico|publisher=Axel Springer SE|url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/29/poll-trump-disqualified-14th-amendment-00118980|access-date=January 24, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=MorningConsult-Politico-September2023|"POL12. And would you say that the 14th Amendment's ban on insurrectionists and those who have aided insurrectionists from holding office disqualifies former President Donald Trump from appearing on state presidential ballots for 2024?"}}
| align=center| September 23–25, 2023
| align=center| 1,967 RV
| align=center| ± 2.0%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''51%'''
| align=center| 34%
| align=center| 15%
|-
| [https://www.newsnationnow.com/polls/full-survey-views-on-gop-candidates-foreign-conflicts-and-more/ NewsNation/Decision Desk HQ]{{efn|name=NewsNation-DecisionDeskHQ-November2023|"Question 28: Would you support or oppose states disqualifying Donald Trump from being on the ballot if he is convicted in one or more of the criminal cases against him?"}}
| align=center| November 26–27, 2023
| align=center| 3,200 RV
| align=center| ± 1.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''57%'''
| align=center| 43%
| align=center| —
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/cbsnews_20240107_PDF1.pdf CBS News/YouGov]{{efn|name=CBSNews-YouGov-January2024-Q33|"33. Some states have removed Donald Trump's name from their election ballots, arguing he committed insurrection and is therefore ineligible to serve as president. Other states are keeping Donald Trump’s name on their ballots, arguing it is up to voters to decide if he should serve. Regardless of how you plan to vote, which do you think states should do?"}}
| align=center| January 3–5, 2024
| align=center| 2,157 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| align=center| 46%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''54%'''
| align=center| —
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2024-01/ABC-News-Ipsos-Topline-Jan2024.pdf ABC News/Ipsos]<ref name="ABC News 1-12-2024">{{cite news|last=Langer|first=Gary|date=January 12, 2024|title=Americans divided on how SCOTUS should handle Trump ballot access: POLL|publisher=ABC News|url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/americans-divided-scotus-handle-trump-ballot-access-poll/story?id=106300304|access-date=January 24, 2024}}</ref><ref name="Ipsos 1-12-2024">{{cite press release|last1=Jackson|first1=Chris|last2=Newall|first2=Mallory|last3=Sawyer|first3=Johnny|last4=Rollason|first4=Charlie|date=January 12, 2024|title=American public split on Trump removal from Colorado, Maine ballots|publisher=Ipsos|url=https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reutersipsos-survey-trump-remains-favored-2024-presidential-nomination-despite-criminal-charges|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=ABCNews-Ipsos-January2024|"20. It's expected that the U.S. Supreme Court will review the rulings in Colorado and Maine that ordered Trump off the ballot. What do you think the U.S. Supreme Court should do?"}}
| align=center| January 4–8, 2024
| align=center| 2,228 adults
| align=center| ± 2.5%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''56%'''
| align=center| 39%
| align=center| 5%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_toplines_final.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo News 2-1-2024">{{cite news|last=Romano|first=Andrew|date=February 1, 2024|title=Yahoo News/YouGov poll: 51% of voters say convicting Trump of a 'serious crime' would be a 'fair outcome'|website=Yahoo! News|publisher=Yahoo! Inc.|url=https://news.yahoo.com/yahoo-newsyougov-poll-most-voters-say-convicting-trump-of-a-serious-crime-would-be-a-fair-outcome-100022394.html|access-date=February 2, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q27|"27. Do you agree or disagree that individual states should remove Trump from their ballots under the 14th Amendment as a result of his actions regarding the Jan. 6 Capitol attack?"}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,594 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''46%'''
| align=center| 39%
| align=center| 15%
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|+style="font-size:100%" | Trump should withdraw candidacy due to January 6 charges or not serve or be elected President if charged or convicted of a serious crime
|- valign= bottom
! style="width:270px;"| Poll source
! style="width:170px;"| Date(s) administered
! class=small | Sample size
! <small>MoE</small>
! style="width:100px;"| % agree
! style="width:100px;"| % disagree
! style="width:100px;"| % no opinion
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-03/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Large%20Sample%20Survey%20Issues%20Poll%20March%202023%20Topline%2003%2024%202023.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Ipsos 3-24-2023">{{cite press release|last1=Lohr|first1=Annaleise Azevedo|last2=Jackson|first2=Chris|date=March 24, 2023|title=Reuters/Ipsos Issues Survey March 2023|publisher=Ipsos|url=https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reutersipsos-issues-survey-march-2023|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-March2023|"TM2037Y21_4. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Former President Donald Trump should NOT run for president again if he is indicted in one of the ongoing investigations about him"}}
| align=center| March 14–20, 2023
| align=center| 4,410 adults
| align=center| ± 1.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 28%
| align=center| 9%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-04/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Trump%20Indictment%20Survey%20Topline%204.6.23_0.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Reuters 4-6-2023">{{cite news|last=Cowan|first=Richard|date=April 6, 2023|title=Americans divided over criminal charges against Trump - Reuters/Ipsos poll|website=Reuters|publisher=Thomson Reuters|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/americans-divided-over-criminal-charges-against-trump-reutersipsos-poll-2023-04-06/|access-date=January 24, 2024}}</ref><ref name="Ipsos 4-7-2023">{{cite press release|last1=Lohr|first1=Annaleise Azevedo|last2=Jackson|first2=Chris|date=April 7, 2023|title=Reuters/Ipsos Survey: Trump remains favored in 2024 presidential nomination despite criminal charges|publisher=Ipsos|url=https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reutersipsos-survey-trump-remains-favored-2024-presidential-nomination-despite-criminal-charges|access-date=January 24, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-April2023|"TM3138Y23. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements: ... h. Donald Trump should be disqualified from running for president because of the criminal charges against him"}}
| align=center| April 5–6, 2023
| align=center| 1,004 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''51%'''
| align=center| 43%
| align=center| 6%
|-
| [https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_Trump_202304211108-1.pdf NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist]<ref name="NPR 4-25-2023">{{cite news|last=Montanaro|first=Domenico|date=April 25, 2023|title=Most Republicans would vote for Trump even if he's convicted of a crime, poll finds|publisher=NPR|url=https://www.npr.org/2023/04/25/1171660997/poll-republicans-trump-president-convicted-crime|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref><ref name="Marist 4-25-2023">{{cite press release|title=A Second Trump Presidency?|date=April 25, 2023|publisher=Marist Institute for Public Opinion|url=https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/a-second-trump-presidency/|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=NPR-PBSNewsHour-Marist|"Do you want Donald Trump to be
president again? If yes: If Donald Trump is found guilty of a crime, do you still want him to be president again?"}}
| align=center| April 17–19, 2023
| align=center| 1,291 adults
| align=center| ± 3.4%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''70%'''
| align=center| 27%
| align=center| 2%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230530_yahoo_toplines.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q50|"50. If Donald Trump is convicted of a serious crime, do you think he should be allowed to serve as president again in the future?"}}
| align=center| May 25–30, 2023
| align=center| 1,520 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''62%'''
| align=center| 23%
| align=center| 15%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-06/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Trump%20Indictment%20Wave%204%20Federal%20Charges%20Topline%2006%2013%202023.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Ipsos 6-13-2023">{{cite press release|last1=Lohr|first1=Annaleise Azevedo|last2=Jackson|first2=Chris|date=June 13, 2023|title=Reuters/Ipsos Survey: Trump maintains lead in presidential race despite criminal indictment|publisher=Ipsos|url=https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reutersipsos-survey-trump-maintains-lead-presidential-race-despite-criminal-indictment|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-June 2023|"TM3138Y23_10. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statement: Donald Trump should be disqualified from running for president because of the criminal charges against him"}}
| align=center| June 9–12, 2023
| align=center| 1,005 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''50%'''
| align=center| 38%
| align=center| 12%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230717_yahoo_toplines.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q29|"29. If Donald Trump is convicted of a serious crime in the coming months, do you think he should be allowed to serve as president again in the future?"}}
| align=center| July 13–17, 2023
| align=center| 1,638 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''62%'''
| align=center| 24%
| align=center| 14%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Trump%20Indictment%20Wave%205%20Federal%20Charges%20Topline%2008%2003%202023_0.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Reuters 8-3-2023" /><ref name="Ipsos 8-3-2023" />{{efn|name=ReutersIpsosAugust2023-TM3181Y23|"TM3181Y23. If all other
things were equal, would you vote for Donald Trump for president in 2024 if he is/has been… Convicted of a felony crime by a jury"}}
| align=center| August 2–3, 2023
| align=center| 1,005 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''67%'''
| align=center| 18%
| align=center| 15%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/Topline%20ABC_Ipsos%20Poll%20Final.pdf ABC News/Ipsos]<ref name="ABC News 8-4-2023">{{cite news|last=Axelrod|first=Tal|date=August 4, 2023|title=Nearly two-thirds of Americans think Jan. 6 charges against Trump are serious: POLL|publisher=ABC News|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/thirds-americans-jan-6-charges-trump-poll/story?id=101954747|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref><ref name="Ipsos 8-4-2023">{{cite press release|last1=Jackson|first1=Chris|last2=Feldman|first2=Sarah|last3=Sawyer|first3=Johnny|last4=Mendez|first4=Bernard|date=August 4, 2023|title=Americans divided on January 6th indictment, in line with other criminal cases against Trump|publisher=Ipsos|url=https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/abc-news-trump-indictment-january-6|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=ABCNews-Ipsos-August2023-Q5|"5. Do you think Donald Trump should or should not suspend his presidential campaign because of this indictment?"}}
| align=center| August 2–3, 2023
| align=center| 1,076 adults
| align=center| ± 3.4%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''49%'''
| align=center| 36%
| align=center| 15%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us08162023_usos65.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 8-16-2023">{{cite press release|title=Majority Of Americans Say Trump Should Be Prosecuted On Federal Criminal Charges Linked To 2020 Election, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; DeSantis Slips, Trump Widens Lead In GOP Primary|date=August 16, 2023|publisher=Quinnipiac University|url=https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3877|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-August2023-Q31|"31. If a person is convicted of a felony, do you think they should still be eligible to be president of the United States, or not?"}}
| align=center| August 10–14, 2023
| align=center| 1,818 adults
| align=center| ± 2.5%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''68%'''
| align=center| 23%
| align=center| 9%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230821_yahoo_results.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q39|"39. If Donald Trump is convicted of a serious crime in the coming months, do you think he should be allowed to serve as president again in the future?"}}
| align=center| August 17–21, 2023
| align=center| 1,665 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''60%'''
| align=center| 26%
| align=center| 14%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-09/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Large%20Sample%20Poll%20%235%20Topline%2009%2020%202023.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Ipsos 9-21-2023">{{cite press release|last1=Jackson|first1=Chris|last2=Lohr|first2=Annaleise Azevedo|last3=Rollason|first3=Charlie|last4=Mendez|first4=Bernard|date=September 21, 2023|title=Reuters/Ipsos Issues Survey September 2023|publisher=Ipsos|url=https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reutersipsos-issues-survey-september-2023|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-September2023|"Q3181Y23_1. If all other things were equal, would you vote for Donald Trump for president in 2024 if he is/has been - Convicted of a felony crime by a jury"}}
| align=center| September 8–14, 2023
| align=center| 4,415 adults
| align=center| ± 1.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''57%'''
| align=center| 26%
| align=center| 17%
|-
| [https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_202309291156.pdf NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist]<ref name="PBS NewsHour 12-19-2023">{{cite news|last=Loffman|first=Matt|date=October 4, 2023|title=These new poll numbers show why Biden and Trump are stuck in a 2024 dead heat|work=PBS NewsHour|publisher=WETA|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/these-new-poll-numbers-show-why-biden-and-trump-are-stuck-in-a-2024-dead-heat|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref><ref name="Marist 10-4-2023">{{cite press release|title=2024 Presidential Contest|date=October 4, 2023|publisher=Marist Institute for Public Opinion|url=https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/2024-presidential-contest/|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=NPR-PBSNewsHour-Marist}}
| align=center| September 25–28, 2023
| align=center| 1,256 adults
| align=center| ± 3.5%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''66%'''
| align=center| 33%
| align=center| 1%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-12/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Large%20Sample%20Survey%20%236%20Topline%2012%2013%202023.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Reuters 12-11-2023">{{cite news|last=Sullivan|first=Andy|date=December 11, 2023|title=Trump holds wide lead in Republican 2024 nominating contest, Reuters/Ipsos poll shows|website=Reuters|publisher=Thomas Reuters|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-holds-wide-lead-republican-2024-nominating-contest-reutersipsos-poll-2023-12-11/|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-December2023|"Q2037Y21_4. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? - Former President Donald Trump should NOT run for president again if he is convicted in one of the criminal trials he faces"}}
| align=center| December 5–11, 2023
| align=center| 4,411 adults
| align=center| ± 1.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''64%'''
| align=center| 28%
| align=center| 9%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20231218_yahoo_toplines.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo! News 12-19-2023">{{cite news|last=Romano|first=Andrew|date=December 19, 2023|title=Poll: Trump is tied with Biden for now — but criminal trials and unpopular plans pose risks for 2024|website=Yahoo! News|publisher=Yahoo! Inc.|url=https://news.yahoo.com/poll-trump-is-tied-with-biden-for-now--but-criminal-trials-and-unpopular-plans-pose-risks-for-2024-204526992.html|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q25|"25. If Donald Trump is convicted of a serious crime in the coming months, do you think he should be allowed to serve as president again in the future?"}}
| align=center| December 14–18, 2023
| align=center| 1,533 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 25%
| align=center| 12%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2024-01/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Large%20Sample%20Survey%20%23%201%20January%202024%20Topline.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Ipsos 1-16-2024">{{cite press release|last1=Jackson|first1=Chris|last2=Lohr|first2=Annaleise Azevedo|date=January 16, 2024|title=Reuters/Ipsos Issues Survey - January 2024|publisher=Ipsos|url=https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reutersipsos-issues-survey-january-2024|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-January2024|"TM3181Y23_1. If all other things were equal, would you vote for Donald Trump for president in 2024 if he is/has been... Convicted of a felony crime by a jury"}}
| align=center| January 3–9, 2024
| align=center| 4,677 adults
| align=center| ± 1.5%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''58%'''
| align=center| 20%
| align=center| 22%
|-
| [https://news.gallup.com/poll/609344/felonies-old-age-heavily-count-against-candidates.aspx Gallup]{{efn|name=Gallup|"If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be convicted of a felony crime by a jury, would you vote for that person?"}}
| align=center| January 2–22, 2024
| align=center| 506 adults
| align=center| ± 6.0%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''70%'''
| align=center| 23%
| align=center| 7%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_toplines_final.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo News 2-1-2024" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q15|"15. Setting aside the law — if Donald Trump is convicted of a serious crime in the coming months, do you think he SHOULD be allowed to serve as president again in the future?"}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,594 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''53%'''
| align=center| 33%
| align=center| 13%
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|+style="font-size:100%" | Conspiring to overturn the results of a presidential election is a serious crime
|- valign= bottom
! style="width:210px;"| Poll source
! style="width:200px;"| Date(s) administered
! class=small | Sample size
! <small>MoE</small>
! style="width:100px;"| % agree
! style="width:100px;"| % disagree
! style="width:100px;"| % no opinion
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230530_yahoo_toplines.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48c|"48. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Conspiring to overturn the results of a presidential election"}}
| align=center| May 25–30, 2023
| align=center| 1,520 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''66%'''
| align=center| 18%
| align=center| 16%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230717_yahoo_toplines.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24c|"24. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Conspiring to overturn the results of a presidential election"}}
| align=center| July 13–17, 2023
| align=center| 1,638 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''70%'''
| align=center| 16%
| align=center| 14%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/Topline%20ABC_Ipsos%20Poll%20Final.pdf ABC News/Ipsos]<ref name="ABC News 8-4-2023" /><ref name="Ipsos 8-4-2023" />{{efn|name=ABCNews-Ipsos-August2023-Q2|"2. As you may know, Donald Trump has been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Do you think the charges against Donald Trump in this case are: Very serious; Somewhat serious; Not too serious; Not serious at all"}}
| align=center| August 2–3, 2023
| align=center| 1,076 adults
| align=center| ± 3.4%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''65%'''
| align=center| 24%
| align=center| 10%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us08162023_usos65.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 8-16-2023" />{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32|"32. How serious do you think the federal criminal charges accusing former President Trump of attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election are; very serious, somewhat serious, not too serious, or not serious at all?"}}
| align=center| August 10–14, 2023
| align=center| 1,818 adults
| align=center| ± 2.5%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''64%'''
| align=center| 32%
| align=center| 4%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230821_yahoo_results.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q29c|"29. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Conspiring to overturn the results of a presidential election"}}
| align=center| August 17–21, 2023
| align=center| 1,665 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''70%'''
| align=center| 17%
| align=center| 13%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us09132023_uscj98.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 9-13-2023">{{cite press release|title=2024 Primary Races: Nearly 3 In 10 Trump Supporters & Half Of Biden Supporters Signal They Are Open To Other Options, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Voters Support Age Limits On Candidates For President & Congress|date=September 13, 2023|publisher=Quinnipiac University|url=https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3878|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-September2023|"39. Are the charges of attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, including his actions around the time of the storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021; very serious, somewhat serious, not too serious, or not serious at all?"}}
| align=center| September 7–11, 2023
| align=center| 1,910 adults
| align=center| ± 2.2%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 34%
| align=center| 3%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20231218_yahoo_toplines.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo! News 12-19-2023" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q24c|"24. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Conspiring to overturn the results of a presidential election"}}
| align=center| December 14–18, 2023
| align=center| 1,533 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''66%'''
| align=center| 18%
| align=center| 15%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20231221.pdf YouGov]{{efn|name=YouGov-December2023-Q4|"4. How serious are the following cases against Donald Trump? Federal election and Jan. 6 case: 4 charges, including for efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to obstruct the certification of the electoral vote."}}
| align=center| December 21–30, 2023
| align=center| 1,000 adults
| align=center| ± 4.0%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''67%'''
| align=center| 25%
| align=center| 9%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_toplines_final.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo News 2-1-2024" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q12|"12. And which of the following things would make someone unfit for the presidency if they were convicted of it? Please select all that apply."}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,594 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''58%'''
| align=center| 17%
| align=center| 16%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20240125.pdf YouGov]{{efn|name=YouGov-January2024-Q5|"5. How serious are the following cases against Donald Trump? Federal election and Jan. 6 case: 4 charges, including for efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to obstruct the certification of the electoral vote."}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,000 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 27%
| align=center| 10%
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|+style="font-size:100%" | Attempting to obstruct the certification of a presidential election is a serious crime
|- valign= bottom
! style="width:210px;"| Poll source
! style="width:200px;"| Date(s) administered
! class=small | Sample size
! <small>MoE</small>
! style="width:100px;"| % agree
! style="width:100px;"| % disagree
! style="width:100px;"| % no opinion
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230530_yahoo_toplines.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48d|"48. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Attempting to obstruct the certification of a presidential election"}}
| align=center| May 25–30, 2023
| align=center| 1,520 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 20%
| align=center| 17%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230717_yahoo_toplines.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24d|"24. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Attempting to obstruct the certification of a presidential election"}}
| align=center| July 13–17, 2023
| align=center| 1,638 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''67%'''
| align=center| 17%
| align=center| 16%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/Topline%20ABC_Ipsos%20Poll%20Final.pdf ABC News/Ipsos]<ref name="ABC News 8-4-2023" /><ref name="Ipsos 8-4-2023" />{{efn|name=ABCNews-Ipsos-August2023-Q2}}
| align=center| August 2–3, 2023
| align=center| 1,076 adults
| align=center| ± 3.4%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''65%'''
| align=center| 24%
| align=center| 10%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us08162023_usos65.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 8-16-2023" />{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32}}
| align=center| August 10–14, 2023
| align=center| 1,818 adults
| align=center| ± 2.5%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''64%'''
| align=center| 32%
| align=center| 4%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230821_yahoo_results.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q29d|"29. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Attempting to obstruct the certification of a presidential election"}}
| align=center| August 17–21, 2023
| align=center| 1,665 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''70%'''
| align=center| 17%
| align=center| 13%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us09132023_uscj98.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 9-13-2023" />{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-September2023}}
| align=center| September 7–11, 2023
| align=center| 1,910 adults
| align=center| ± 2.2%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 34%
| align=center| 3%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20231218_yahoo_toplines.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo! News 12-19-2023" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q24d|"24. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Attempting to obstruct the certification of a presidential election"}}
| align=center| December 14–18, 2023
| align=center| 1,533 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''64%'''
| align=center| 19%
| align=center| 17%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20231221.pdf YouGov]{{efn|name=YouGov-December2023-Q4}}
| align=center| December 21–30, 2023
| align=center| 1,000 adults
| align=center| ± 4.0%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''67%'''
| align=center| 25%
| align=center| 9%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_toplines_final.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo News 2-1-2024" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q12}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,594 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''54%'''
| align=center| 17%
| align=center| 16%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20240125.pdf YouGov]{{efn|name=YouGov-January2024-Q5}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,000 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 27%
| align=center| 10%
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|+style="font-size:100%" | Inciting or aiding an insurrection against the federal government is a serious crime
|- valign= bottom
! style="width:210px;"| Poll source
! style="width:200px;"| Date(s) administered
! class=small | Sample size
! <small>MoE</small>
! style="width:100px;"| % agree
! style="width:100px;"| % disagree
! style="width:100px;"| % no opinion
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230530_yahoo_toplines.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48e|"48. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Inciting or aiding an insurrection against the federal government"}}
| align=center| May 25–30, 2023
| align=center| 1,520 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''64%'''
| align=center| 17%
| align=center| 19%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230717_yahoo_toplines.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24e|"24. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Inciting or aiding an insurrection against the federal government"}}
| align=center| July 13–17, 2023
| align=center| 1,638 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''70%'''
| align=center| 14%
| align=center| 16%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/Topline%20ABC_Ipsos%20Poll%20Final.pdf ABC News/Ipsos]<ref name="ABC News 8-4-2023" /><ref name="Ipsos 8-4-2023" />{{efn|name=ABCNews-Ipsos-August2023-Q2}}
| align=center| August 2–3, 2023
| align=center| 1,076 adults
| align=center| ± 3.4%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''65%'''
| align=center| 24%
| align=center| 10%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us08162023_usos65.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 8-16-2023" />{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32}}
| align=center| August 10–14, 2023
| align=center| 1,818 adults
| align=center| ± 2.5%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''64%'''
| align=center| 32%
| align=center| 4%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us09132023_uscj98.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 9-13-2023" />{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-September2023}}
| align=center| September 7–11, 2023
| align=center| 1,910 adults
| align=center| ± 2.2%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 34%
| align=center| 3%
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|+style="font-size:100%" | January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was not justified and was a criminal act
|- valign= bottom
! style="width:210px;"| Poll source
! style="width:200px;"| Date(s) administered
! class=small | Sample size
! <small>MoE</small>
! style="width:100px;"| % agree
! style="width:100px;"| % disagree
! style="width:100px;"| % no opinion
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2022-08/Reuters%20News%20Issue%20Poll%208%20-%20Political%20Violence%20Topline%20Aug%2016-17%202022.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Ipsos 8-22-2022">{{cite press release|last1=Jackson|first1=Chris|last2=Lohr|first2=Annaleise Azevedo|last3=Duran|first3=Jocelyn|date=August 22, 2022|title=Very few Americans believe political violence is acceptable|publisher=Ipsos|url=https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/very-few-americans-believe-political-violence-acceptable|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-August2022|"TM3037Y22. Which of the following best describes what you think happened on January 6th, 2021, when many people entered the U.S. Capitol building, even if neither is exactly right?"}}
| align=center| August 16–17, 2022
| align=center| 1,005 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''67%'''
| align=center| 33%
| align=center| —
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230821_yahoo_results.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-August2023|"26. Do you believe the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was justified or not justified?"}}
| align=center| August 17–21, 2023
| align=center| 1,665 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''68%'''
| align=center| 10%
| align=center| 21%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/January_6th_Capitol_Takeover_poll_results.pdf YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-January2024|"6. Do you approve or disapprove of the Trump supporters taking over the Capitol building in Washington, D.C.,
on January 6, 2021, to stop Congressional proceedings?"}}
| align=center| January 2–4, 2024
| align=center| 1,000 adults
| align=center| ± 4.1%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''74%'''
| align=center| 14%
| align=center| 13%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/cbsnews_20240107_PDF1.pdf CBS News/YouGov]{{efn|name=CBSNews-YouGov-January2024-Q23|"23. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the actions taken by the people who forced their way into the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021?"}}
| align=center| January 3–5, 2024
| align=center| 2,157 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''78%'''
| align=center| 22%
| align=center| —
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_toplines_final.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo News 2-1-2024" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q22|"22. Do you believe the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was justified or unjustified?"}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,594 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''62%'''
| align=center| 13%
| align=center| 25%
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|+style="font-size:100%" | Trial in federal obstruction case against Trump should occur before the general election in 2024
|- valign= bottom
! style="width:210px;"| Poll source
! style="width:200px;"| Date(s) administered
! class=small | Sample size
! <small>MoE</small>
! style="width:100px;"| % agree
! style="width:100px;"| % disagree
! style="width:100px;"| % no opinion
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/August%202023%20Politico%20Magazine%20Survey%20Trump%20Indictments.pdf Politico/Ipsos]<ref name="Politico 8-25-2023">{{cite news|last=Khardori|first=Ankush|date=August 25, 2023|title=Lock Him Up? A New Poll Has Some Bad News for Trump|website=Politico|publisher=Axel Springer SE|url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/08/25/ipsos-poll-trump-indictment-00112755|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref><ref name="Ipsos 8-25-2023">{{cite press release|last1=Jackson|first1=Chris|last2=Feldman|first2=Sarah|last3=Mendez|first3=Bernard|last4=Ivey|first4=Tyler|last5=Lohr|first5=Annaleise Azevedo|date=August 25, 2023|title=Three in five Americans say Trump should stand trial before the Republican primaries or 2024 general election|publisher=Ipsos|url=https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/politico-indictment-august-2023|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=Politico-Ipsos-August2023|"Q3. Should the federal trial on Donald Trump’s 2020 election subversion case take place before the 2024 presidential election in November 2024?"}}
| align=center| August 18–21, 2023
| align=center| 1,032 adults
| align=center| ± 3.2%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''61%'''
| align=center| 19%
| align=center| 19%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20231218_yahoo_toplines.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo! News 12-19-2023" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q28|"28. Do you think Trump's trials should take place before or after the 2024 general election?"}}
| align=center| December 14–18, 2023
| align=center| 1,533 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''61%'''
| align=center| 21%
| align=center| 19%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20231221.pdf YouGov]{{efn|name=YouGov-December2023-Q8|"8. When do you think trials for the following cases should begin? Federal election and Jan. 6 case: 4 charges, including for efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to obstruct the certification of the electoral vote."}}
| align=center| December 21–30, 2023
| align=center| 1,000 adults
| align=center| ± 4.0%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''42%'''
| align=center| 19%
| align=center| 39%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_toplines_final.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo News 2-1-2024" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q17|"17. Do you think Trump's trials should take place before or after the 2024 general election?"}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,594 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''58%'''
| align=center| 23%
| align=center| 19%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20240125.pdf YouGov]{{efn|name=YouGov-January2024-Q9|"9. When do you think trials for the following cases should begin? Federal election and Jan. 6 case: 4 charges, including for efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to obstruct the certification of the electoral vote."}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,000 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''41%'''
| align=center| 22%
| align=center| 38%
|}
===Party affiliation===
{| class="wikitable"
|+style="font-size:100%" | January 6 investigations, charges, or conviction disqualify Trump from Presidency under 14th Amendment by states or Supreme Court
|- valign= bottom
! style="width:190px;"| Poll source
! style="width:200px;"| Date(s)<br />administered
! class=small | Sample<br />size
! <small>MoE</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20220927_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo! News 9-30-2022" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-September2022}}
| align=center| September 23–27, 2022
| align=center| 1,566 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''80%'''
| align=center| 10%
| align=center| 10%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''50%'''
| align=center| 32%
| align=center| 18%
| align=center| 17%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''62%'''
| align=center| 21%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20221017_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-October2022}}
| align=center| October 13–17, 2022
| align=center| 1,629 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''81%'''
| align=center| 11%
| align=center| 9%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''43%'''
| align=center| 39%
| align=center| 18%
| align=center| 22%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''66%'''
| align=center| 13%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230227_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-February2023}}
| align=center| February 23–27, 2023
| align=center| 1,516 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''77%'''
| align=center| 12%
| align=center| 11%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''46%'''
| align=center| 41%
| align=center| 13%
| align=center| 18%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''69%'''
| align=center| 13%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3870 Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 3-29-2023" />{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-March2023}}
| align=center| March 23–27, 2023
| align=center| 1,788 adults
| align=center| ± 2.3%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''88%'''
| align=center| 9%
| align=center| 3%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''55%'''
| align=center| 36%
| align=center| 8%
| align=center| 23%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''75%'''
| align=center| 2%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Trump%20Indictment%20Wave%205%20Federal%20Charges%20Topline%2008%2003%202023_0.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Reuters 8-3-2023" /><ref name="Ipsos 8-3-2023" />{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-August2023-TM3138Y23}}
| align=center| August 2–3, 2023
| align=center| 1,005 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''85%'''
| align=center| 11%
| align=center| 4%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''64%'''
| align=center| 29%
| align=center| 7%
| align=center| 32%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''60%'''
| align=center| 7%
|-
| [https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23936298/cnn-poll-on-gop-primary-voters.pdf CNN/SSRS]<ref name="CNN 9-5-2023" />{{efn|name=CNN-SSRS-September2023}}
| align=center| August 25–31, 2023
| align=center| 1,503 adults
| align=center| ± 3.5%
| align=center| —
| align=center| —
| align=center| —
| align=center| —
| align=center| —
| align=center| —
| align=center| 17%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''83%'''
| align=center| 2%
|-
| [https://www.washingtonpost.com/tablet/2023/09/24/sept-15-20-2023-washington-post-abc-news-poll/ Washington Post/ABC News]<ref name="Washington Post 9-29-2023" />{{efn|name=WashingtonPost-ABCNews-September2023}}
| align=center| September 15–20, 2023
| align=center| 1,006 adults
| align=center| ± 3.5%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''73%'''
| align=center| 22%
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 43%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''52%'''
| align=center| 6%
| align=center| 15%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''81%'''
| align=center| 4%
|-
| [https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000018a-e139-dd68-a3cf-fbf97b870000 Morning Consult/Politico]<ref name="Politico 9-29-2023" />{{efn|name=MorningConsult-Politico-September2023}}
| align=center| September 23–25, 2023
| align=center| 1,967 RV
| align=center| ± 2.0%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''81%'''
| align=center| 9%
| align=center| 10%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''48%'''
| align=center| 33%
| align=center| 19%
| align=center| 21%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 15%
|-
| [https://www.newsnationnow.com/polls/full-survey-views-on-gop-candidates-foreign-conflicts-and-more/ NewsNation/Decision Desk HQ]{{efn|name=NewsNation-DecisionDeskHQ-November2023}}
| align=center| November 26–27, 2023
| align=center| 3,200 RV
| align=center| ± 1.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''85%'''
| align=center| 15%
| align=center| —
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''60%'''
| align=center| 40%
| align=center| —
| align=center| 28%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''72%'''
| align=center| —
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/cbsnews_20240107_PDF1.pdf CBS News/YouGov]{{efn|name=CBSNews-YouGov-January2024-Q33}}
| align=center| January 3–5, 2024
| align=center| 2,157 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''81%'''
| align=center| 19%
| align=center| —
| align=center| 44%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''56%'''
| align=center| —
| align=center| 10%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''90%'''
| align=center| —
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_tabs_final.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo News 2-1-2024" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q27}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,594 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''81%'''
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 14%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''43%'''
| align=center| 42%
| align=center| 15%
| align=center| 12%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''80%'''
| align=center| 8%
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|+style="font-size:100%" | Trump should withdraw candidacy due to January 6 charges or not serve or be elected President if charged or convicted of a serious crime
|- valign= bottom
! style="width:230px;"| Poll source
! style="width:200px;"| Date(s)<br />administered
! class=small | Sample<br />size
! <small>MoE</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-03/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Large%20Sample%20Survey%20Issues%20Poll%20March%202023%20Topline%2003%2024%202023.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Ipsos 3-24-2023" />{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-March2023}}
| align=center| March 14–20, 2023
| align=center| 4,410 adults
| align=center| ± 1.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''87%'''
| align=center| 10%
| align=center| 3%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''59%'''
| align=center| 26%
| align=center| 15%
| align=center| 44%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''50%'''
| align=center| 6%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-04/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Trump%20Indictment%20Survey%20Topline%204.6.23_0.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Reuters 4-6-2023" /><ref name="Ipsos 4-7-2023" />{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-April2023}}
| align=center| April 5–6, 2023
| align=center| 1,004 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''82%'''
| align=center| 14%
| align=center| 4%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''49%'''
| align=center| 43%
| align=center| 9%
| align=center| 18%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''75%'''
| align=center| 6%
|-
| [https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_Trump_202304211108-1.pdf NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist]<ref name="NPR 4-25-2023" /><ref name="Marist 4-25-2023" />{{efn|name=NPR-PBSNewsHour-Marist}}
| align=center| April 17–19, 2023
| align=center| 1,291 adults
| align=center| ± 3.4%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''95%'''
| align=center| 4%
| align=center| 1%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''75%'''
| align=center| 21%
| align=center| 4%
| align=center| 34%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 3%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230530_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q50}}
| align=center| May 25–30, 2023
| align=center| 1,520 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''84%'''
| align=center| 10%
| align=center| 7%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 22%
| align=center| 15%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''43%'''
| align=center| 39%
| align=center| 18%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-06/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Trump%20Indictment%20Wave%204%20Federal%20Charges%20Topline%2006%2013%202023.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Ipsos 6-13-2023" />{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-June 2023}}
| align=center| June 9–12, 2023
| align=center| 1,005 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''80%'''
| align=center| 16%
| align=center| 4%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''51%'''
| align=center| 30%
| align=center| 20%
| align=center| 17%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''71%'''
| align=center| 12%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230717_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q29}}
| align=center| July 13–17, 2023
| align=center| 1,638 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''87%'''
| align=center| 7%
| align=center| 6%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 25%
| align=center| 12%
| align=center| 34%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''48%'''
| align=center| 18%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Trump%20Indictment%20Wave%205%20Federal%20Charges%20Topline%2008%2003%202023_0.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Reuters 8-3-2023" /><ref name="Ipsos 8-3-2023" />{{efn|name=ReutersIpsosAugust2023-TM3181Y23}}
| align=center| August 2–3, 2023
| align=center| 1,005 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''89%'''
| align=center| 7%
| align=center| 3%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''69%'''
| align=center| 12%
| align=center| 19%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''45%'''
| align=center| 35%
| align=center| 20%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us08162023_usos65.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 8-16-2023" />{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-August2023-Q31}}
| align=center| August 10–14, 2023
| align=center| 1,818 adults
| align=center| ± 2.5%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''84%'''
| align=center| 13%
| align=center| 8%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''68%'''
| align=center| 25%
| align=center| 7%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''58%'''
| align=center| 28%
| align=center| 14%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230821_yahoo_results.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q39}}
| align=center| August 17–21, 2023
| align=center| 1,665 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''89%'''
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 5%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''56%'''
| align=center| 29%
| align=center| 15%
| align=center| 29%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''53%'''
| align=center| 18%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-09/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Large%20Sample%20Poll%20%235%20Topline%2009%2020%202023.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Ipsos 9-21-2023" />{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-September2023}}
| align=center| September 8–14, 2023
| align=center| 4,415 adults
| align=center| ± 1.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''88%'''
| align=center| 7%
| align=center| 5%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''57%'''
| align=center| 19%
| align=center| 24%
| align=center| 30%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''52%'''
| align=center| 19%
|-
| [https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_202309291156.pdf NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist]<ref name="PBS NewsHour 12-19-2023" /><ref name="Marist 10-4-2023" />{{efn|name=NPR-PBSNewsHour-Marist}}
| align=center| September 25–28, 2023
| align=center| 1,256 adults
| align=center| ± 3.5%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''94%'''
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 1%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''67%'''
| align=center| 32%
| align=center| 1%
| align=center| 30%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''67%'''
| align=center| 3%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-12/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Large%20Sample%20Survey%20%236%20Topline%2012%2013%202023.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Reuters 12-11-2023" />{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-December2023}}
| align=center| December 5–11, 2023
| align=center| 4,411 adults
| align=center| ± 1.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''89%'''
| align=center| 8%
| align=center| 3%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''69%'''
| align=center| 19%
| align=center| 13%
| align=center| 37%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''57%'''
| align=center| 6%
|-
| [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/19/us/elections/times-siena-national-poll-toplines.html New York Times/Siena College]<ref>{{cite news|last1=Haberman|first1=Maggie|last2=Feuer|first2=Alan|last3=Igielnik|first3=Ruth|date=December 20, 2023|title=Nearly a Quarter of Trump Voters Say He Shouldn't Be Nominated if Convicted|work=The New York Times|publisher=The News Times Company|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/20/us/politics/trump-poll-conviction-trials.html|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|"Which statement comes closer to your view on what should happen if Donald Trump wins the most votes in the Republican primary and is then convicted of a crime? Donald Trump should/should NOT be the Republican nominee"}}
| align=center| December 10–14, 2023
| align=center| 380 RV
| align=center| —
| align=center| —
| align=center| —
| align=center| —
| align=center| —
| align=center| —
| align=center| —
| align=center| 32%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''62%'''
| align=center| 7%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20231218_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo! News 12-19-2023" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q25}}
| align=center| December 14–18, 2023
| align=center| 1,533 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''91%'''
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 4%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''61%'''
| align=center| 25%
| align=center| 14%
| align=center| 35%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''50%'''
| align=center| 15%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2024-01/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Large%20Sample%20Survey%20%23%201%20January%202024%20Topline.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Ipsos 1-16-2024" />{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-January2024}}
| align=center| January 3–9, 2024
| align=center| 4,677 adults
| align=center| ± 1.5%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''91%'''
| align=center| 3%
| align=center| 6%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''55%'''
| align=center| 14%
| align=center| 30%
| align=center| 28%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''43%'''
| align=center| 29%
|-
| [https://news.gallup.com/poll/609344/felonies-old-age-heavily-count-against-candidates.aspx Gallup]{{efn|name=Gallup}}
| align=center| January 2–22, 2024
| align=center| 506 adults
| align=center| ± 6.0%
| align=center| —
| align=center| 15%
| align=center| —
| align=center| —
| align=center| 21%
| align=center| —
| align=center| —
| align=center| 35%
| align=center| —
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_tabs_final.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo News 2-1-2024" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q15}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,594 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''86%'''
| align=center| 8%
| align=center| 6%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''51%'''
| align=center| 34%
| align=center| 15%
| align=center| 19%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''65%'''
| align=center| 16%
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|+style="font-size:100%" | Conspiring to overturn the results of a presidential election is a serious crime
|- valign= bottom
! style="width:190px;"| Poll source
! style="width:200px;"| Date(s)<br />administered
! class=small | Sample<br />size
! <small>MoE</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230530_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48c}}
| align=center| May 25–30, 2023
| align=center| 1,520 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''85%'''
| align=center| 7%
| align=center| 8%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''64%'''
| align=center| 20%
| align=center| 16%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''50%'''
| align=center| 31%
| align=center| 19%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230717_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24c}}
| align=center| July 13–17, 2023
| align=center| 1,638 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''88%'''
| align=center| 6%
| align=center| 6%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''70%'''
| align=center| 16%
| align=center| 14%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''48%'''
| align=center| 29%
| align=center| 23%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us08162023_usos65.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 8-16-2023" />{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32}}
| align=center| August 10–14, 2023
| align=center| 1,818 adults
| align=center| ± 2.5%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''94%'''
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 1%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''66%'''
| align=center| 30%
| align=center| 4%
| align=center| 30%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''66%'''
| align=center| 4%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230821_yahoo_results.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q29c}}
| align=center| August 17–21, 2023
| align=center| 1,665 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''93%'''
| align=center| 4%
| align=center| 3%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''67%'''
| align=center| 20%
| align=center| 13%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''47%'''
| align=center| 32%
| align=center| 21%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us09132023_uscj98.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 9-13-2023" />{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-September2023}}
| align=center| September 7–11, 2023
| align=center| 1,910 adults
| align=center| ± 2.2%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''97%'''
| align=center| 2%
| align=center| 1%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''64%'''
| align=center| 32%
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 31%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''65%'''
| align=center| 4%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20231218_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo! News 12-19-2023" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q24c}}
| align=center| December 14–18, 2023
| align=center| 1,533 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''89%'''
| align=center| 6%
| align=center| 5%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''66%'''
| align=center| 18%
| align=center| 16%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''43%'''
| align=center| 35%
| align=center| 23%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20231221.pdf YouGov]{{efn|name=YouGov-December2023-Q4}}
| align=center| December 21–30, 2023
| align=center| 1,000 adults
| align=center| ± 4.0%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''92%'''
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 2%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''65%'''
| align=center| 20%
| align=center| 14%
| align=center| 40%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''50%'''
| align=center| 11%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_tabs_final.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo News 2-1-2024" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q12}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,594 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''83%'''
| align=center| 4%
| align=center| 5%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''57%'''
| align=center| 20%
| align=center| 14%
| align=center| 32%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''33%'''
| align=center| 26%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20240125.pdf YouGov]{{efn|name=YouGov-January2024-Q5}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,000 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''85%'''
| align=center| 8%
| align=center| 7%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''60%'''
| align=center| 23%
| align=center| 16%
| align=center| 43%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''51%'''
| align=center| 6%
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|+style="font-size:100%" | Attempting to obstruct the certification of a presidential election is a serious crime
|- valign= bottom
! style="width:190px;"| Poll source
! style="width:200px;"| Date(s)<br />administered
! class=small | Sample<br />size
! <small>MoE</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230530_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48d}}
| align=center| May 25–30, 2023
| align=center| 1,520 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''82%'''
| align=center| 9%
| align=center| 8%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 22%
| align=center| 15%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''43%'''
| align=center| 36%
| align=center| 21%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230717_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24d}}
| align=center| July 13–17, 2023
| align=center| 1,638 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''89%'''
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 6%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''65%'''
| align=center| 18%
| align=center| 17%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''45%'''
| align=center| 32%
| align=center| 23%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us08162023_usos65.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 8-16-2023" />{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32}}
| align=center| August 10–14, 2023
| align=center| 1,818 adults
| align=center| ± 2.5%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''94%'''
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 1%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''66%'''
| align=center| 30%
| align=center| 4%
| align=center| 30%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''66%'''
| align=center| 4%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230821_yahoo_results.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q29d}}
| align=center| August 17–21, 2023
| align=center| 1,665 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''92%'''
| align=center| 4%
| align=center| 5%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''68%'''
| align=center| 20%
| align=center| 12%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''47%'''
| align=center| 33%
| align=center| 21%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us09132023_uscj98.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 9-13-2023" />{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-September2023}}
| align=center| September 7–11, 2023
| align=center| 1,910 adults
| align=center| ± 2.2%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''97%'''
| align=center| 2%
| align=center| 1%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''64%'''
| align=center| 32%
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 31%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''65%'''
| align=center| 4%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20231218_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo! News 12-19-2023" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q24d}}
| align=center| December 14–18, 2023
| align=center| 1,533 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''89%'''
| align=center| 6%
| align=center| 5%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''62%'''
| align=center| 21%
| align=center| 17%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''39%'''
| align=center| 35%
| align=center| 25%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20231221.pdf YouGov]{{efn|name=YouGov-December2023-Q4}}
| align=center| December 21–30, 2023
| align=center| 1,000 adults
| align=center| ± 4.0%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''92%'''
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 2%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''65%'''
| align=center| 20%
| align=center| 14%
| align=center| 40%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''50%'''
| align=center| 11%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_tabs_final.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo News 2-1-2024" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q12}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,594 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''80%'''
| align=center| 4%
| align=center| 5%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''52%'''
| align=center| 20%
| align=center| 14%
| align=center| 27%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''33%'''
| align=center| 26%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20240125.pdf YouGov]{{efn|name=YouGov-January2024-Q5}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,000 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''85%'''
| align=center| 8%
| align=center| 7%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''60%'''
| align=center| 23%
| align=center| 16%
| align=center| 43%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''51%'''
| align=center| 6%
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|+style="font-size:100%" | Inciting or aiding an insurrection against the federal government is a serious crime
|- valign= bottom
! style="width:190px;"| Poll source
! style="width:200px;"| Date(s)<br />administered
! class=small | Sample<br />size
! <small>MoE</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230530_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48e}}
| align=center| May 25–30, 2023
| align=center| 1,520 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''81%'''
| align=center| 10%
| align=center| 9%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''66%'''
| align=center| 16%
| align=center| 18%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''47%'''
| align=center| 28%
| align=center| 25%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230717_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24e}}
| align=center| July 13–17, 2023
| align=center| 1,638 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''87%'''
| align=center| 6%
| align=center| 6%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''70%'''
| align=center| 14%
| align=center| 16%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''50%'''
| align=center| 27%
| align=center| 23%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us08162023_usos65.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 8-16-2023" />{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32}}
| align=center| August 10–14, 2023
| align=center| 1,818 adults
| align=center| ± 2.5%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''94%'''
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 1%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''66%'''
| align=center| 30%
| align=center| 4%
| align=center| 30%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''66%'''
| align=center| 4%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us09132023_uscj98.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 9-13-2023" />{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-September2023}}
| align=center| September 7–11, 2023
| align=center| 1,910 adults
| align=center| ± 2.2%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''97%'''
| align=center| 2%
| align=center| 1%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''64%'''
| align=center| 32%
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 31%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''65%'''
| align=center| 4%
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|+style="font-size:100%" | January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was not justified and was a criminal act
|- valign= bottom
! style="width:190px;"| Poll source
! style="width:200px;"| Date(s)<br />administered
! class=small | Sample<br />size
! <small>MoE</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2022-08/Reuters%20News%20Issue%20Poll%208%20-%20Political%20Violence%20Topline%20Aug%2016-17%202022.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Ipsos 8-22-2022" />{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-August2022}}
| align=center| August 16–17, 2022
| align=center| 1,005 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''84%'''
| align=center| 16%
| align=center| —
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''71%'''
| align=center| 29%
| align=center| —
| align=center| 47%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''53%'''
| align=center| —
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230821_yahoo_results.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-August2023}}
| align=center| August 17–21, 2023
| align=center| 1,665 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''87%'''
| align=center| 4%
| align=center| 9%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''66%'''
| align=center| 12%
| align=center| 22%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''53%'''
| align=center| 19%
| align=center| 28%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/January_6th_Capitol_Takeover_poll_results.pdf YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-January2024}}
| align=center| January 2–4, 2024
| align=center| 1,000 adults
| align=center| ± 4.1%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''92%'''
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 2%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''66%'''
| align=center| 13%
| align=center| 21%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 22%
| align=center| 15%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/cbsnews_20240107_PDF1.pdf CBS News/YouGov]{{efn|name=CBSNews-YouGov-January2024-Q23}}
| align=center| January 3–5, 2024
| align=center| 2,157 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''84%'''
| align=center| 16%
| align=center| —
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''82%'''
| align=center| 18%
| align=center| —
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''70%'''
| align=center| 30%
| align=center| —
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_tabs_final.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo News 2-1-2024" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q22}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,594 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''79%'''
| align=center| 9%
| align=center| 12%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''61%'''
| align=center| 14%
| align=center| 25%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''48%'''
| align=center| 20%
| align=center| 32%
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|+style="font-size:100%" | Trial in federal obstruction case against Trump should occur before the general election in 2024
|- valign= bottom
! style="width:190px;"| Poll source
! style="width:200px;"| Date(s) administered
! class=small | Sample size
! <small>MoE</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/August%202023%20Politico%20Magazine%20Survey%20Trump%20Indictments.pdf Politico/Ipsos]<ref name="Politico 8-25-2023" /><ref name="Ipsos 8-25-2023" />{{efn|name=Politico-Ipsos-August2023}}
| align=center| August 18–21, 2023
| align=center| 1,032 adults
| align=center| ± 3.2%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''89%'''
| align=center| 3%
| align=center| 8%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 14%
| align=center| 22%
| align=center| 33%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''45%'''
| align=center| 21%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20231218_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo! News 12-19-2023" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q28}}
| align=center| December 14–18, 2023
| align=center| 1,533 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''87%'''
| align=center| 6%
| align=center| 7%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''58%'''
| align=center| 22%
| align=center| 20%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''40%'''
| align=center| 37%
| align=center| 23%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20231221.pdf YouGov]{{efn|name=YouGov-December2023-Q8}}
| align=center| December 21–30, 2023
| align=center| 1,000 adults
| align=center| ± 4.0%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''64%'''
| align=center| 6%
| align=center| 31%
| align=center| 39%
| align=center| 15%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''47%'''
| align=center| 22%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''40%'''
| align=center| 39%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_tabs_final.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo News 2-1-2024" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q17}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,594 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''85%'''
| align=center| 8%
| align=center| 8%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''62%'''
| align=center| 21%
| align=center| 17%
| align=center| 31%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''43%'''
| align=center| 26%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20240125.pdf YouGov]{{efn|name=YouGov-January2024-Q9}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,000 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''60%'''
| align=center| 22%
| align=center| 38%
| align=center| 39%
| align=center| 16%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''45%'''
| align=center| 21%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''43%'''
| align=center| 36%
|}
== Reactions from other candidates ==
Democratic presidential candidates [[Marianne Williamson]] and [[Dean Phillips]] criticized the Colorado Supreme Court decision to remove another candidate from the ballot.<ref>{{cite news|newspaper=The Hill|title=Long-shot Biden challengers say Trump ballot bans 'dangerous' to democracy|author=Tara Suter|date=January 13, 2024|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4407017-long-shot-biden-challengers-trump-ballot-bans-dangerous/}}</ref> The other Republican candidates at the time – [[Chris Christie]], [[Ron DeSantis]], [[Nikki Haley]], and [[Vivek Ramaswamy]] – all criticized the decision with Christie stating "I do not believe Donald Trump should be prevented from being president of the United States, by any court; I think he should be prevented from being the president of the United States by the voters of this country", and Haley stating "the last thing we want is judges telling us who can and can't be on the ballot". Ramaswamy stated he would withdraw from the Colorado primary if the court decision stood.<ref>{{cite news|newspaper=Deseret News|location=Salt Lake City|title=Keep Trump on the ballot, his GOP challengers say|author=Samuel Benson|date=December 20, 2023|url=https://www.deseret.com/2023/12/20/24010070/trump-on-the-ballot-his-gop-challengers-say}}</ref>
== Violent incidents ==
There have been widespread [[Doxing|doxxing]], [[swatting]], and violent threats made against politicians who have attempted to remove Trump from the ballot. On December 29, 2023, Bellows was swatted.<ref name=":0" /> The incidents are part of the broader [[2023 swatting of American politicians]].<ref name=":0" />
In the early hours of January 2, 2024, a man broke into the [[Colorado Supreme Court]], opened fire, then surrendered to police. No one was injured, but the building was damaged. Though multiple threats had been made against the four Colorado justices who ruled to disqualify Trump, the [[Colorado State Patrol]] suggested that this man may have acted alone. The man's motivations were not immediately publicized.<ref>{{Cite web|last1=Andone|first1=Dakin|last2=Boyette|first2=Chris |last3=Webb |first3=Rachel |date=January 2, 2024 |title=Man breaks into Colorado Supreme Court overnight and opens fire, police say|url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/02/us/colorado-supreme-court-arrest/index.html |access-date=January 2, 2024 |website=CNN |language=en |archive-date=January 2, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240102182445/https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/02/us/colorado-supreme-court-arrest/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
== Footnotes ==
{{notelist}}
== References ==
{{Reflist|refs=
<ref name="Threat">{{multiref2
|1={{Cite news |last1=Bacon |first1=Perry Jr |date=December 30, 2023 |title=Yes, Trump should be removed from the ballot |language=en-US |newspaper=Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/29/trump-ballot-maine-colorado/ |access-date=December 30, 2023 |issn=0190-8286 |archive-date=December 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231230072048/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/29/trump-ballot-maine-colorado/ |url-status=live }}
|2={{Cite web |last1=Young |first1=Quentin |date=November 30, 2023 |title=The time to reject autocracy is now|url=https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/11/30/the-time-to-reject-autocracy-is-now/ |website=Colorado Newsline |access-date=December 31, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=December 31, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231231044552/https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/11/30/the-time-to-reject-autocracy-is-now/ |url-status=live }}
|3={{Cite web |last1=Graber |first1=Mark A. |date=November 29, 2023 |title=Donald Trump and the Jefferson Davis Problem|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/opinion/trump-president-candidate-constitution.html|website=The New York Times |access-date=December 31, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=December 31, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231231045727/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/opinion/trump-president-candidate-constitution.html |url-status=live }}
|4={{Cite web |last1=Somin |first1=Ilya |date=December 1, 2023 |title=Yes, Trump Is Disqualified from Office|url=https://www.cato.org/commentary/yes-trump-disqualified-office |website=CATO Institute |access-date=December 31, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=December 31, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231231060837/https://www.cato.org/commentary/yes-trump-disqualified-office |url-status=live }}
|5={{Cite web |last1=Kahn |first1=Paul W. |date=December 29, 2023 |title=Progressives need to get real about Trump, democracy and the Supreme Court|url=https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4381899-progressives-need-to-get-real-about-trump-democracy-and-the-supreme-court/ |website=The Hill|access-date=December 31, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=December 31, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231231062852/https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4381899-progressives-need-to-get-real-about-trump-democracy-and-the-supreme-court/ |url-status=live }}
|6={{Cite web|last1=Zirin|first1=James D. |date=January 2, 2024 |title=Will Trump's disqualification case be Bush v. Gore for 2024?|url=https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4384285-will-trumps-disqualification-case-be-bush-v-gore-for-2024/|website=The Hill|access-date=January 3, 2024 |language=en |archive-date=January 2, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240102155254/https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4384285-will-trumps-disqualification-case-be-bush-v-gore-for-2024/|url-status=live }}
|7={{Cite web |last1=Luttig |first1=J. Michael |last2=Tribe |first2=Laurence H. |date=August 19, 2023 |title=The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/ |website=The Atlantic |access-date=January 4, 2024 |language=en |archive-date=August 20, 2023 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20230820122539/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/ |url-status=live }}
|8={{Cite web|last1=French|first1=David|date=January 4, 2024|title=The Case for Disqualifying Trump Is Strong|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/04/opinion/the-case-for-disqualifying-trump-is-strong.html|website=The New York Times|access-date=January 5, 2024|language=en|archive-date=January 5, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240105010605/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/04/opinion/the-case-for-disqualifying-trump-is-strong.html|url-status=live}}
}}</ref>
}}
== Works cited ==
* {{cite report|last1=Elsea|first1=Jennifer K.|last2=Jones|first2=Juria L.|last3=Whitaker|first3=L. Paige|date=January 10, 2024|title=Disqualification of a Candidate for the Presidency, Part II: Examining Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment as It Applies to Ballot Access|publisher=Congressional Research Service|ref={{sfnRef|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024b}}|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11096|access-date=January 14, 2024}}
* {{cite report|last1=Elsea|first1=Jennifer K.|last2=Jones|first2=Juria L.|last3=Whitaker|first3=L. Paige|date=January 9, 2024|title=Disqualification of a Candidate for the Presidency, Part I: Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment as It Applies to the Presidency|publisher=Congressional Research Service|ref={{sfnRef|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024a}}|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11094|access-date=January 14, 2024}}
* {{cite web|last1=Lash|first1=Kurt T.|date=December 28, 2023|title=The Meaning and Ambiguity of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment|ssrn=4591838|doi=10.2139/ssrn.4591838|s2cid=264902188 |url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4591838|access-date=January 2, 2024}}
* {{cite report|last1=Cole|first1=Jared P.|last2=Garvey|first2=Todd|date=December 6, 2023|title=Impeachment and the Constitution|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46013|access-date=December 29, 2023}}
* {{cite web|last1=Graber|first1=Mark|date=October 4, 2023|title=Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment: Our Questions, Their Answers|ssrn=4591133|doi=10.2139/ssrn.4591133|s2cid=263687575|url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4591133|ref={{sfnRef|Graber|2023a}}|access-date=January 2, 2024|archive-date=December 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231230060526/https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4591133|url-status=live}}
* {{cite report|title=Write-In Voting|date=October 2023|publisher=[[Election Assistance Commission]]|url=https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/Write_In_Voting_Designed_Report_508.pdf|ref={{sfnRef|Election Assistance Commission|2023}}|access-date=December 22, 2023}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Blackman |first1=Josh |last2=Tillman |first2=Seth Barrett |date=September 12, 2023 |title=Sweeping and Forcing the President into Section 3: A Response to William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen |journal=[[Texas Review of Law and Politics]] |publisher=[[University of Texas School of Law]] |volume=28 |doi=10.2139/ssrn.4568771 |ssrn-access=free |doi-access=free |ssrn=4568771|s2cid=262183775 }}
* {{cite journal |last1=Baude |first1=William |last2=Paulsen |first2=Michael Stokes |date=August 14, 2023 |title=The Sweep and Force of Section Three |ssrn-access=free |journal=[[University of Pennsylvania Law Review]] |publisher=[[University of Pennsylvania Law School]] |url=https://ssrn.com/abstract=4532751 |ssrn=4532751|access-date=December 29, 2023}}
* {{cite report |last1=Berris |first1=Peter G. |date=August 3, 2023 |title=Overview of the Indictment of Former President Trump Related to the 2020 Election |publisher=Congressional Research Service |url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11016|access-date=August 23, 2023}}
* {{cite report|last1=Brannon|first1=Valerie C.|date=March 10, 2023|title=Statutory Interpretation: Theories, Tools, and Trends|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45153|access-date=December 31, 2023|archive-date=July 22, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230722162435/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45153|url-status=live}}
* {{Cite journal |last1=Vlahoplus |first1=John| date=2023 |title=Insurrection, Disqualification, and the Presidency |journal=Brit. J. Am. Legal Stud. |doi=10.2478/bjals-2023-0015 |ssrn=4440157 |ssrn-access=free |language=en|doi-access=free }}
* {{cite book|editor-last=Amado|editor-first=Alexandra|year=2022|title=Election Law Manual|publisher=[[National Center for State Courts]]/[[College of William & Mary]]|edition=2nd|url=https://www.electionlawprogram.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/83833/ELM_Fall_22.pdf|access-date=January 8, 2024}}
* {{cite report |url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569 |title=The Insurrection Bar to Office: Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment |last1=Elsea |first1=Jennifer K. |date=September 7, 2022 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |access-date=September 21, 2023}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Magliocca |first1=Gerard N. |year=2021 |title=Amnesty and Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment |url=https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/221946/02%20Magliocca.pdf |journal=Constitutional Commentary |publisher=[[University of Minnesota Law School]] |volume=36 |issue=1 |hdl=11299/221946 |hdl-access=free |ssrn-access=free |pages=87–130 |doi=10.2139/ssrn.3748639 |doi-access=free |ssrn=3748639 |access-date=December 8, 2023 |archive-date=August 29, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230829062946/https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/221946/02%20Magliocca.pdf |url-status=live }}
* {{cite journal|last1=Lynch|first1=Myles S.|year=2021|title=Disloyalty & Disqualification: Reconstructing Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment|journal=William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal|publisher=[[William & Mary Law School]]|volume=30|issue=1|pages=153–220|doi=|url=https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol30/iss1/5|access-date=December 28, 2023|archive-date=September 3, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230903231513/https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol30/iss1/5/|url-status=live}}
* {{cite journal|last1=Blackman|first1=Josh|last2=Tillman|first2=Seth Barrett|year=2021|title=Is the President an 'Officer of the United States' for Purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment?|journal=[[New York University Journal of Law & Liberty]]|publisher=[[New York University School of Law]]|volume=15|issue=1|ssrn=3978095|url=https://ssrn.com/abstract=3978095|ref={{sfnRef|Blackman|Tillman|2021a}}|ssrn-access=free }}
* {{cite report|last1=Rybicki|first1=Elizabeth|last2=Whitaker|first2=L. Paige|date=December 8, 2020|title=Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Session, Including Objections by Members of Congress|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32717|access-date=July 5, 2023}}
* {{cite report|last1=Neale|first1=Thomas H.|date=October 9, 2020|title=Presidential Elections: Vacancies in Major-Party Candidacies and the Position of President-Elect|publisher=Congressional Research Service|ref={{sfnRef|Neale|2020c}}|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44648|access-date=July 5, 2023}}
* {{cite report|last1=Neale|first1=Thomas H.|date=October 6, 2020|title=Contingent Election of the President and Vice President by Congress: Perspectives and Contemporary Analysis|publisher=Congressional Research Service|ref={{sfnRef|Neale|2020b}}|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R40504|access-date=July 5, 2023}}
* {{cite report|last1=Neale|first1=Thomas H.|date=July 14, 2020|title=Presidential Succession: Perspectives and Contemporary Issues for Congress|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46450|ref={{sfnRef|Neale|2020a}}|access-date=July 19, 2023}}
* {{cite report|last1=Shelly|first1=Jacob D.|date=July 10, 2020|title=Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Electoral College: States May Restrict Faithless Electors|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10515|access-date=July 10, 2023}}
* {{cite report|last1=Neale|first1=Thomas H.|last2=Nolan|first2=Andrew|title=The National Popular Vote (NPV) Initiative: Direct Election of the President by Interstate Compact|publisher=Congressional Research Service|date=October 28, 2019|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43823/9|access-date=November 10, 2019}}
* {{cite report|last1=Murrill|first1=Brandon J.|date=March 15, 2018|title=Modes of Constitutional Interpretation|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45129|access-date=December 20, 2023}}
* {{cite journal|last1=Mascott|first1=Jennifer L.|year=2018|title=Who Are 'Officers of the United States'?|journal=[[Stanford Law Review]]|publisher=[[Stanford Law School]]|volume=70|issue=2|pages=443–564|url=https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/officers-united-states/|access-date=January 5, 2024|archive-date=January 5, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240105140744/https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/officers-united-states/|url-status=live}}
* {{cite book|last=Nicoletti|first=Cynthia|year=2017|title=Secession on Trial: The Treason Prosecution of Jefferson Davis|place=New York|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|isbn=978-1108415521}}
* {{cite report|title=Preserving Our Institutions: The Continuity of the Presidency|date=June 2009|publisher=Continuity of Government Commission|url=https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_continuity_of_government.pdf|ref={{sfnRef|Continuity of Government Commission|2009}}|access-date=May 18, 2023}}
* {{cite book|title=The Federalist Papers|editor-first=Clinton|editor-last=Rossiter|editor-link=Clinton Rossiter|publisher=[[New American Library|Signet Classics]]|year=2003|orig-year=1961|isbn=978-0-451-52881-0}}
* {{cite report|last1=Gamboa|first1=Anthony H.|title=Elections: The Scope of Congressional Authority in Election Administration|date=March 13, 2001|publisher=[[Government Accountability Office|General Accounting Office]]|url=https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-01-470.pdf|access-date=June 8, 2023}}
* {{Cite web |title=Trump v Anderson - Certiorari Granted |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/010524zr2_886b.pdf |access-date=January 5, 2024 |website=scotus.gov}}
* {{cite journal|title=Third Session of the 42nd Congress|date=February 12, 1873|journal=[[United States Senate Journal]]|publisher=[[Library of Congress]]|volume=68|url=http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(sj06845))|ref={{sfnRef|Senate Journal 42(3)}}|access-date=July 1, 2023}}
=== Further reading ===
* {{cite episode|title=Democracy on Trial|series=Frontline|series-link=Frontline (American TV program)|network=[[PBS]]|station=[[WGBH-TV]]|season=42|number=11|url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/democracy-on-trial/|access-date=February 3, 2024}}
{{January 6 United States Capitol attack navbox}}
{{2024 United States presidential election}}
{{Donald Trump}}
[[Category:2024 controversies in the United States]]
[[Category:2024 United States presidential election]]
[[Category:Aftermath of the January 6 United States Capitol attack]]
[[Category:Donald Trump controversies]]
[[Category:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign]]
[[Category:Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution]]
[[Category:Controversies of the 2024 United States presidential election]]' |
New page wikitext, after the edit (new_wikitext) | '{{Short description|2023–24 U.S. legal and political dispute}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=March 2024}}
[[File:Trump 2024 state ballot eligibility map.svg|thumb|upright=1.2|Eligibility of Donald Trump on GOP primary ballots by state prior to ''[[Trump v. Anderson]]'':
{{legend|#00bb00|Case dismissed by state supreme court}}yuor mom is faaat{{legend|#90EE90|Case dismissed by lower court}}
{{legend|#cc9933|Decision ruled that Trump is ineligible; stayed, reversed by United States Supreme Court}}
{{legend|#666666|Lawsuit filed}}]]
{{Donald Trump series}}
{{January 6 United States Capitol attack sidebar}}
[[Donald Trump]]'s eligibility to run in the [[2024 United States presidential election|2024 U.S. presidential election]] was the subject of dispute due to his involvement in the [[January 6 United States Capitol attack]], through the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]]'s "insurrection clause", which disqualifies [[insurrection|insurrectionists]] against the United States from holding office if they have previously taken an oath tdeez nuts the constitution. Courts or officials in three states—[[Colorado]], [[Maine]], and [[Illinois]]—ruled that Trump was barred from presidential ballots. However, the Supreme Court in ''[[Trump v. Anderson]]'' (2024) reversed the ruling in Colorado on the basis that states could not enforce the insurrection clause against federal elected officials.<ref>{{ussc|name=Trump v. Anderson|volume=601|docket=23-719|year=2024}}</ref>
In December 2023, the [[Colorado Supreme Court]] in ''[[Trump v. Anderson|Anderson v. Griswold]]'' ruled that Trump had engaged in insurrection and was ineligible to hold the office of[[Shenna Bellows|a Bellows]] also ruled that Trump engaged in insurrection and was therefore ineligible to be on the [[2024 Maine Republican presidential primary|state's primary election]] ballot. An Illinois judge ruled Trump was ineligible for ballot access in the state in February 2024.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/illinois-judge-rules-trump-removed-republican-primary-ballot-jan-6-rio-rcna141065|title=Illinois judge rules Trump ineligible for Republican primary ballot over Jan. 6 riot|work=[[NBC News]]|date=February 28, 2024}}</ref> All three states had their decisions unanimously reversed by the United States Supreme Court.<ref name = "politicoMarch4">{{cite news|date=March 4, 2024|title=States can’t kick Trump off ballot, Supreme Court says |publisher=Politico|url=https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/04/states-cant-remove-trump-from-ballot-supreme-court-says-00144673|access-date=March 4, 2024}}</ref> Previously, the [[Minnesota Supreme Court]] and the [[Michigan Court of Appeals]] both ruled that presidential eligibility cannot be applied by their [[State court (United States)|state courts]] to [[primary election]]s, but did not rule on the issues for a general election. By January 2024, formal challenges to Trump's eligibility had been filed in at least 34 states.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Bogel-Burroughs|first1=Nicholas|last2=Smith|first2=Mitch|date=January 3, 2024|title=What to Know About the Efforts to Remove Trump From the 2024 Ballot|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/article/trump-ballot-remove-2024.html|access-date=January 4, 2024|archive-date=January 4, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240104012812/https://www.nytimes.com/article/trump-ballot-remove-2024.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Gamio|first1=Lazaro|last2=Smith|first2=Mitch|date=January 4, 2024|title=Tracking Efforts to Remove Trump From the 2024 Ballot|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/02/us/politics/trump-ballot-removal-map.html|access-date=January 4, 2024|archive-date=January 3, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240103232038/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/02/us/politics/trump-ballot-removal-map.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
On January 5, 2024, the Supreme Court granted a [[writ]] of ''[[certiorari]]'' for Trump's appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court ruling in ''Anderson v. Grisw old''<ref>{{cite news|last1=Hurley|first1=Lawrence|date=January 5, 2024|title=Supreme Court agrees to weigh whether Trump can be kicked off ballot in Colorado|publisher=NBC News|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-agrees-weigh-whether-trump-can-kicked-ballot-colorado-rcna132058|access-date=January 5, 2024|archive-date=January 5, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240105220842/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-agrees-weigh-whether-trump-can-kicked-ballot-colorado-rcna132058|url-status=live}}</ref> and heard oral arguments on February 8.<ref name=reutersfeb8>{{Cite web |last1=Chung |first1=Andrew |last2=Kruzel|first2=John|date=February 8, 2024 |title=US Supreme Court justices grill Trump lawyer over ballot disqualification |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-brings-fight-stay-ballot-us-supreme-court-2024-02-08/ |access-date=March 4, 2024 |website=Reuters |language=en}}</ref> On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a ruling unanimously reversing the Colorado Supreme Court decision, ruling that states had no authority to remove Trump from their ballots.<ref>{{cite news|last=Sherman|first=Mark|date=March 4, 2024|title=Supreme Court restores Trump to ballot, rejecting state attempts to ban him over Capitol attack|publisher=Associated Press|url=https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-insurrection-election-colorado-51e79c0f03013034c8a042cb278b6446|access-date=March 4, 2024}}</ref>
Several commentators have also argued for disqualification because of [[Democratic backsliding in the United States|democratic backsliding]], as well as the [[paradox of tolerance]], arguing that voters should not be able to elect Donald Trump, whom they see as a threat to the republic.<ref name="Threat"/> Other commentators argue that removing Trump from the ballot constitutes democratic backsliding.<ref>{{Cite web |date=December 20, 2023 |title=The Folly of Colorado's Trump Disqualification |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/colorado-supreme-court-donald-trump-ballot-2024-fourteenth-amendment-083b1271 |access-date=January 9, 2024 |website=The Wall Street Journal |archive-date=January 9, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240109075234/https://www.wsj.com/articles/colorado-supreme-court-donald-trump-ballot-2024-fourteenth-amendment-083b1271 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|first1=Jed|last1=Rubenfeld|date=January 4, 2024 |title=A Solution to the Trump Ballot Conundrum |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-solution-to-the-trump-ballot-conundrum-griffin-colorado-us-supreme-court-6d6b64ef |website=The Wall Street Journal |access-date=January 9, 2024 |archive-date=January 9, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240109075234/https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-solution-to-the-trump-ballot-conundrum-griffin-colorado-us-supreme-court-6d6b64ef|url-status=live }}</ref>
There has been widespread [[doxing]], [[swatting]], [[Bomb threat|bomb scares]], and other violent threats made against politicians who have attempted to remove Trump from the ballot. On December 29, 2023, Secretary Bellows was swatted.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last1=Elena |first1=Maria |date=December 30, 2023 |title=Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows' home targeted with swatting call |url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/12/30/metro/shenna-bellows-maine-home-targeted-by-swatters/ |access-date=December 30, 2023 |website=[[The Boston Globe]] |language=en-US |archive-date=December 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231230221518/https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/12/30/metro/shenna-bellows-maine-home-targeted-by-swatters/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The incidents are part of a broader [[2023 swatting of American politicians|spate of swatting attacks]].<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Lee|first1=Dave|date=January 4, 2024 |title=US Must Stop 'Swatting' From Becoming an Election Weapon |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-01-04/us-must-stop-swatting-from-becoming-a-deadly-election-weapon|access-date=January 5, 2024|work=Bloomberg.com |language=en |archive-date=January 4, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240104125150/https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-01-04/us-must-stop-swatting-from-becoming-a-deadly-election-weapon|url-status=live }}</ref>
== Background ==
In the aftermath of the [[American Civil War]], the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|14th Amendment]] was enacted. [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Section 3: Disqualification from office for insurrection or rebellion|Section 3]] of the amendment prohibits anyone from holding public office if they had previously sworn an oath to support the Constitution, but then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." The full text of this section reads:
{{quote box|'''Section 3.''' 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.
| align = center
}}
Trump's role in the January 6 United States Capitol attack is cited by opponents as a reason for his disqualification from seeking public office. A state may also make a determination that Trump is disqualified under Section 3 from appearing on that state's ballot.{{r|3CNN}} Trump could appeal in court any disqualification by Congress or by a state.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Wolfe |first1=Jan |date=January 14, 2021 |title=Explainer: Impeachment or the 14th Amendment – Can Trump be barred from future office?|work=[[Reuters]]|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-explainer/explainer-impeachment-or-the-14th-amendment-can-trump-be-barred-from-future-office-idUSKBN29I356 |url-status=live |access-date=November 18, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210129190855/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-explainer/explainer-impeachment-or-the-14th-amendment-can-trump-be-barred-from-future-office-idUSKBN29I356 |archive-date=January 29, 2021}}</ref> In addition to state or federal legislative action, a court action could be brought against Trump seeking his disqualification under Section 3.<ref>{{Cite magazine|last1=Weiss |first1=Debra Cassens |date=January 12, 2021 |title=Could the 14th Amendment be used to disqualify Trump from office?|url=https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/could-the-14th-amendment-be-used-to-disqualify-trump-from-office |url-status=live |magazine=[[ABA Journal]]|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210205021635/https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/could-the-14th-amendment-be-used-to-disqualify-trump-from-office |archive-date=February 5, 2021 |access-date=February 15, 2021}}</ref> The 14th Amendment itself provides a path for Congress to allow such a candidate to run, but this would require a vote of two-thirds of each House to remove such disability.
=== Second Trump impeachment ===
On January 10, 2021, [[Nancy Pelosi]], the [[Speaker of the United States House of Representatives|Speaker of the House]], formally requested Representatives' input as to whether to pursue Section 3 disqualification of outgoing President Donald Trump because of his role in the January 6 Capitol attack.<ref name="3CNN">{{Cite news |last1=Wolf |first1=Zachary B. |date=January 12, 2021 |title=What's the 14th Amendment and how does it work? |work=[[CNN]]|url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/politics/14th-amendment-explainer/index.html |url-status=live |access-date=February 15, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210112120617/https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/politics/14th-amendment-explainer/index.html |archive-date=January 12, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Parks |first1=MaryAlice|date=January 12, 2021 |title=Democrats cite rarely used part of 14th Amendment in new impeachment article|language=en|work=[[ABC News]]|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrats-cite-rarely-part-constitution-impeachment-article/story?id=75177543 |url-status=live |access-date=February 15, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210213212053/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrats-cite-rarely-part-constitution-impeachment-article/story?id=75177543 |archive-date=February 13, 2021}}</ref> On January 13, 2021, a majority of the House of Representatives (232–197) voted to [[Second impeachment of Donald Trump|impeach Trump for "incitement of insurrection"]].<ref>{{cite journal|title=House of Representatives|date=January 13, 2021|journal=[[Congressional Record]]|volume=167|issue=8|page=H191|url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2021-01-13/pdf/CREC-2021-01-13.pdf|access-date=December 30, 2023|archive-date=December 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231230180441/https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2021-01-13/pdf/CREC-2021-01-13.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> In the [[Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump|Senate impeachment trial]], a majority of the Senate (57–43) voted on February 13, 2021, that he was guilty, but this fell short of the two-thirds [[supermajority]] required to convict him.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Senate|date=February 13, 2021|journal=[[Congressional Record]]|volume=167|issue=28|page=S733|url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2021-02-13/pdf/CREC-2021-02-13.pdf|access-date=December 23, 2023|archive-date=February 20, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210220161203/https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2021-02-13/pdf/CREC-2021-02-13.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>
=== Subsequent congressional action ===
{{See also|Aftermath of the January 6 United States Capitol attack}}
On July 1, 2021, the [[United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack|U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol]] was formed. Over a year and a half, the committee interviewed more than a thousand people,<ref>{{cite news |last1=Thrush |first1=Glenn |last2=Broadwater |first2=Luke |date=May 17, 2022 |title=Justice Dept. Is Said to Request Transcripts From Jan. 6 Committee|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/us/politics/jan-6-committee-transcripts.html |access-date=December 20, 2023 |archive-date=May 21, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220521223909/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/us/politics/jan-6-committee-transcripts.html |url-status=live }}</ref> reviewed more than a million documents,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/20221021%20J6%20Cmte%20Subpeona%20to%20Donald%20Trump.pdf |title=Letter from Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman, and Liz Cheney, Vice Chair, to President Donald J. Trump |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221021174523/https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/20221021%20J6%20Cmte%20Subpeona%20to%20Donald%20Trump.pdf |archive-date=October 21, 2022 |date=October 21, 2022 }}</ref> and held [[Public hearings of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack|public hearings]]. On August 5, 2021, in a [[Aftermath of the January 6 United States Capitol attack#Law enforcement award bill|bill]] passed by the [[117th United States Congress]] and signed into law by President [[Joe Biden]] that awarded four [[Congressional Gold Medal]]s to the [[United States Capitol Police]], the [[Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia]], and two U.S. Capitol Police officers who protected the [[United States Capitol]] during the January 6 attack, a finding listed in its first section declared that "On January 6, 2021, a mob of insurrectionists forced its way into the U.S. Capitol building and congressional office buildings and engaged in acts of vandalism, looting, and violently attacked Capitol Police officers."<ref name="CNN 8-5-2021">{{cite news |last1=Vazquez |first1=Maegan |last2=Judd |first2=Donald |date=August 5, 2021 |title=Biden signs bill to award Congressional Gold Medal to police who responded to insurrection |work=CNN |url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/politics/joe-biden-capitol-police-officers-award/index.html |access-date=December 25, 2023 |archive-date=December 30, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231230180441/https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/politics/joe-biden-capitol-police-officers-award/index.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="USPL 117-32">{{uspl|117|32}}, {{usstat|135|322}}</ref> The bill passed overwhelmingly, including the support of 188 House Republicans, with only 21 voting against.<ref>{{cite news |first1=Chris |last1=Cillizza |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/16/politics/gold-medal-january-6-insurrection/index.html |title=Why did 21 Republicans oppose honoring those who served on January 6? |work=[[CNN]] |date=June 16, 2021 |access-date=January 15, 2024 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/21-house-republicans-vote-against-awarding-congressional-gold-medal-to-all-police-officers-who-responded-on-jan-6/2021/06/15/1fd17ac2-ce25-11eb-8cd2-4e95230cfac2_story.html |title=21 House Republicans vote against awarding Congressional Gold Medal to all police officers who responded on Jan. 6 |first=Felicia |last=Sonmez |date=June 15, 2021 |access-date=January 15, 2024 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/house/558620-21-republicans-vote-against-awarding-medals-to-police-who-defended-capitol-on/ |title=21 Republicans vote against awarding medals to police who defended Capitol|newspaper=The Hill |date=June 15, 2021 |last1=Marcos |first1=Cristina |access-date=January 15, 2024 }}</ref> On December 15, 2022, House Democrats introduced a bill finding that Trump was ineligible to hold the office of the Presidency under Section 3,<ref>{{Cite web|last1=Papenfuss |first1=Mary |date=December 16, 2022 |title=41 House Democrats Introduce Bill To Bar 'Insurrectionist' Trump From Presidency|url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/david-cicilline-bill-bar-trump-presidency-jan-6-insurrection_n_639bf0d2e4b0f4895ada049a |website=[[HuffPost]] |language=en |access-date=December 20, 2023 |archive-date=May 1, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230501142137/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/david-cicilline-bill-bar-trump-presidency-jan-6-insurrection_n_639bf0d2e4b0f4895ada049a |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=November 22, 2022 |url=https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/cicilline.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/cicilline_14th-amd-bill_text.pdf |title=A Bill To provide that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to again hold the office of President of the United States or to hold any office, civil or military, under the United States |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230601073857/https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/cicilline.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/cicilline_14th-amd-bill_text.pdf |archive-date=June 1, 2023 }}, H.R. 9578, 117th Cong. (December 15, 2022). See [https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/9578 here] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230712013546/https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/9578 |date=July 12, 2023 }} for more information.</ref> but it did not advance.<ref>{{Cite web |date=December 15, 2022 |title=H.R.9578 – To provide that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to again hold the Office of President of the United States or to hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/9578 |access-date=December 20, 2023 |work=[[117th United States Congress]] |via=congress.gov |archive-date=July 12, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230712013546/https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/9578 |url-status=live }}</ref> On December 22, the House Select January 6 Committee published an 845-page final report.<ref>{{cite news |date=December 22, 2022 |title=Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol – December 00, 2022 – 117th Congress Second Session – House Report 117-000 |work=United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack|url=https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/Report_FinalReport_Jan6SelectCommittee.pdf |url-status=live |access-date=December 22, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221223025524/https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/Report_FinalReport_Jan6SelectCommittee.pdf |archive-date=December 23, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Broadwater|first1=Luke |date=December 22, 2022|title=Jan. 6 Panel Issues Final Report on Effort to Overturn 2020 Election – "Our democratic institutions are only as strong as the commitment of those who are entrusted with their care," Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote in a forward to the report. |work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/22/us/politics/jan-6-committee-report.html |url-status=live |access-date=December 22, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221223030025/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/22/us/politics/jan-6-committee-report.html |archive-date=December 23, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last1=Sangal|first1=Aditi|last2=Hammond|first2=Elise|last3=Chowdhury |first3=Maureen |last4=Vogt |first4=Adrienne |date=December 21, 2022 |title=House Jan. 6 committee report delayed and anticipated to be released Thursday|url=https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/jan-6-committee-final-report/h_ef7fa8b2c6709beeae957f9db89828ea |access-date=December 21, 2022 |website=[[CNN]] |language=en |archive-date=July 12, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230712012438/https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/jan-6-committee-final-report/h_ef7fa8b2c6709beeae957f9db89828ea |url-status=live }}</ref> The final report states that the 17 central findings of the Committee were as follows:
#Beginning election night and continuing through January 6 and thereafter, Donald Trump purposely disseminated false allegations of [[Electoral fraud|fraud]] related to the [[2020 United States presidential election|2020 Presidential election]] in order to aid his effort to overturn the election and for purposes of soliciting contributions. These false claims provoked his supporters to violence on January 6.
#Knowing that he and his supporters had [[Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election|lost dozens of election lawsuits]], and despite his own senior advisors refuting his election fraud claims and urging him to concede his election loss, Donald Trump refused to accept the lawful result of the 2020 election. Rather than honor his constitutional obligation [under Article II, Section III] to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,"{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=552}} President Trump instead plotted to overturn the election outcome.
#Despite knowing that such an action would be illegal, and that no State had or would submit an altered electoral slate, Donald Trump corruptly pressured Vice President [[Mike Pence]] to refuse to count electoral votes during [[2021 United States Electoral College vote count|Congress's joint session on January 6]].
#Donald Trump sought to corrupt the [[United States Department of Justice|U.S. Department of Justice]] by attempting to enlist Department officials to make purposely false statements and thereby aid his effort to overturn the Presidential election. After that effort failed, Donald Trump offered the position of [[United States Attorney General|Acting Attorney General]] to [[Jeffrey Clark|Jeff Clark]] knowing that [[Jeffrey Clark letter|Clark intended to disseminate false information aimed at overturning the election]].
#Without any evidentiary basis and contrary to [[State law (United States)|State]] and [[Law of the United States#Federal law|Federal law]], [[Trump–Raffensperger phone call|Donald Trump unlawfully pressured State officials]] and legislators to change the results of the election in their States.
#Donald Trump oversaw an effort to obtain and transmit [[Trump fake electors plot|false electoral certificates]] to Congress and the [[National Archives and Records Administration|National Archives]].
#Donald Trump pressured Members of Congress to object to valid slates of electors from several States.
#Donald Trump purposely verified false information filed in [[Federal judiciary of the United States|Federal court]].
#Based on false allegations that the election was stolen, Donald Trump summoned tens of thousands of supporters to [[Washington, D.C.|Washington]] for January 6. Although these supporters were angry and some were armed, Donald Trump instructed them to march to the Capitol on January 6 to "take back" their country.
#Knowing that a violent attack on the Capitol was underway and knowing that his words would incite further violence, [[Social media use by Donald Trump|Donald Trump purposely sent a social media message]] publicly condemning Vice President Pence at 2:24 p.m. on January 6.
#Knowing that violence was underway at the Capitol, and despite his duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed, Donald Trump refused repeated requests over a multiple hour period that he instruct his violent supporters to disperse and leave the Capitol, and instead watched the violent attack unfold on television. This failure to act perpetuated the violence at the Capitol and obstructed Congress's proceeding to count electoral votes.
#[[Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election|Each of these actions by Donald Trump was taken in support of a multi-part conspiracy to overturn the lawful results of the 2020 Presidential election]].
#The intelligence community and law enforcement agencies did successfully detect the [[Planning of the January 6 United States Capitol attack|planning for potential violence on January 6]], including planning specifically by the [[Proud Boys]] and [[Oath Keepers|Oath Keeper]] militia groups who ultimately led the attack on the Capitol. As January 6 approached, the intelligence specifically identified the potential for violence at the U.S. Capitol. This intelligence was shared within the executive branch, including with the [[United States Secret Service|Secret Service]] and the [[United States National Security Council|President's National Security Council]].
#Intelligence gathered in advance of January 6 did not support a conclusion that [[Antifa (United States)|Antifa]] or other left-wing groups would likely engage in a violent counter-demonstration, or attack Trump supporters on January 6. Indeed, intelligence from January 5 indicated that some left-wing groups were instructing their members to "stay at home" and not attend on January 6. Ultimately, none of these groups was involved to any material extent with the attack on the Capitol on January 6.
#Neither the intelligence community nor law enforcement obtained intelligence in advance of January 6 on the full extent of the [[Eastman memos|ongoing planning]] by President Trump, [[John Eastman]], [[Rudy Giuliani|Rudolph Giuliani]] and their associates to overturn the certified election results. Such agencies apparently did not (and potentially could not) anticipate the provocation President Trump would offer the crowd in his [[The Ellipse|Ellipse]] speech, that President Trump would "spontaneously" instruct the crowd to march to the Capitol, that President Trump would exacerbate the violent riot by sending his 2:24 p.m. tweet condemning Vice President Pence, or the full scale of the violence and lawlessness that would ensue. Nor did law enforcement anticipate that President Trump would refuse to direct his supporters to leave the Capitol once violence began. No intelligence community advance analysis predicted exactly how President Trump would behave; no such analysis recognized the full scale and extent of the threat to the Capitol on January 6.
#Hundreds of Capitol and DC Metropolitan police officers performed their duties bravely on January 6, and America owes those individuals immense gratitude for their courage in the defense of Congress and our Constitution. Without their bravery, January 6 would have been far worse. Although certain members of the Capitol Police leadership regarded their approach to January 6 as "all hands on deck," the Capitol Police leadership did not have sufficient assets in place to address the violent and lawless crowd. Capitol Police leadership did not anticipate the scale of the violence that would ensue after President Trump instructed tens of thousands of his supporters in the Ellipse crowd to march to the Capitol, and then tweeted at 2:24 p.m. Although Chief [[Steven Sund]] raised the idea of [[District of Columbia National Guard|National Guard]] support, the Capitol Police Board did not request Guard assistance prior to January 6. The Metropolitan Police took an even more proactive approach to January 6, and deployed roughly 800 officers, including responding to the emergency calls for help at the Capitol. Rioters still managed to break their line in certain locations, when the crowd surged forward in the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump's 2:24 p.m. tweet. The Department of Justice readied a group of Federal agents at [[Quantico, Virginia|Quantico]] and in the [[Washington, D.C.|District of Columbia]], anticipating that January 6 could become violent, and then deployed those agents once it became clear that police at the Capitol were overwhelmed. Agents from the [[United States Department of Homeland Security|Department of Homeland Security]] were also deployed to assist.
#President Trump had authority and responsibility to direct deployment of the National Guard in the District of Columbia, but never gave any order to deploy the National Guard on January 6 or on any other day. Nor did he instruct any Federal law enforcement agency to assist. Because the authority to deploy the National Guard had been delegated to the [[United States Department of Defense|Department of Defense]], the [[United States Secretary of Defense|Secretary of Defense]] could, and ultimately did deploy the Guard. Although evidence identifies a likely miscommunication between members of the civilian leadership in the Department of Defense impacting the timing of deployment, the Committee has found no evidence that the Department of Defense intentionally delayed deployment of the National Guard. The Select Committee recognizes that some at the Department had genuine concerns, counseling caution, that President Trump might give an illegal order to use the military in support of his efforts to overturn the election.<ref name="House January 6 Committee pp. 4–7">{{cite report|title=Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol|date=December 22, 2022|publisher=[[United States Government Publishing Office|U.S. Government Publishing Office]]|pages=4–7|url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/pdf/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf|access-date=July 7, 2023|archive-date=July 29, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230729165626/https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/pdf/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf|url-status=live}}{{PD-notice}}</ref>
=== Federal election obstruction case and lawsuits ===
In February 2021, [[List of United States representatives from Mississippi|Mississippi Representative]] [[Bennie Thompson]] filed a [[Thompson v. Trump|lawsuit against Trump]] that alleged that Trump [[incitement|incited]] the January 6 Capitol attack,<ref>{{cite news |last1=Peterson |first1=Kristina |last2=Kendall |first2=Brent |date=February 16, 2021 |title=Trump, Giuliani Accused of Conspiring to Incite U.S. Capitol Riot in New Lawsuit|work=The Wall Street Journal|publisher=News Corp|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-giuliani-accused-of-conspiring-to-incite-a-riot-in-new-lawsuit-11613491170 |access-date=October 5, 2023 |archive-date=October 10, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231010222633/https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-giuliani-accused-of-conspiring-to-incite-a-riot-in-new-lawsuit-11613491170 |url-status=live }}</ref> and [[List of United States representatives from California|California Representative]] [[Eric Swalwell]] and two U.S. Capitol Police officers filed lawsuits against Trump the next month, likewise alleging incitement of the attack.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Kendall|first1=Brent|date=March 5, 2021 |title=Trump Faces New Lawsuit Alleging Incitement of Capitol Riot |work=The Wall Street Journal |publisher=News Corp|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-faces-new-lawsuit-alleging-incitement-of-capitol-riot-11614965456|access-date=October 5, 2023 |archive-date=October 10, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231010222634/https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-faces-new-lawsuit-alleging-incitement-of-capitol-riot-11614965456|url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Diaz|first1=Jaclyn|date=March 31, 2021|title=2 Capitol Police Officers Sue Trump For Injuries Sustained During Jan. 6 Riot|publisher=NPR|url=https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31/982928605/2-capitol-police-officers-sue-trump-for-injuries-sustained-during-jan-6-riot|access-date=December 27, 2023|archive-date=June 26, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210626095928/https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31/982928605/2-capitol-police-officers-sue-trump-for-injuries-sustained-during-jan-6-riot|url-status=live}}</ref> On December 19, 2022, the House Select January 6 Committee voted unanimously to [[Smith special counsel investigation|refer Trump to the U.S. Department of Justice for prosecution]], along with John Eastman.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Mangan |first1=Dan |last2=Wilkie |first2=Christina |date=December 19, 2022 |title=Jan. 6 committee sends DOJ historic criminal referral of Trump over Capitol riot|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/19/jan-6-committee-details-trump-criminal-referral-of-trump-over-capitol-riot.html |access-date=December 19, 2022 |website=[[CNBC]]|language=en|archive-date=December 19, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221219192709/https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/19/jan-6-committee-details-trump-criminal-referral-of-trump-over-capitol-riot.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The committee recommended four charges against Trump: obstruction of an official proceeding; conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to make a false statement; and attempts to "incite", "assist" or "aid or comfort" an insurrection.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Broadwater|first1=Luke|date=December 19, 2022|title=Accusing Trump of insurrection, the Jan. 6 committee refers him to the Justice Dept.|url=https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/12/19/us/jan-6-committee-trump#jan-6-trump-criminal-justice-dept |access-date=December 19, 2022 |website=[[The New York Times]] |archive-date=October 28, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231028223521/https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/12/19/us/jan-6-committee-trump#jan-6-trump-criminal-justice-dept |url-status=live }}</ref> On August 1, 2023, a [[Grand juries in the United States|grand jury]] [[indicted]] Trump in the [[United States District Court for the District of Columbia|District of Columbia U.S. District Court]] on [[Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)|four charges]] for his conduct following the 2020 presidential election through the January 6 Capitol attack: [[Conspiracy against the United States|conspiracy to defraud the United States]] under [[Title 18 of the United States Code]]; [[obstructing an official proceeding]] and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding under the [[Sarbanes–Oxley Act|Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002]]; and [[conspiracy against rights]] under the [[Enforcement Act of 1870]].<ref>{{cite news|title=Trump indicted for efforts to undermine the 2020 election|date=August 1, 2023|work=PBS NewsHour|publisher=WETA|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-indicted-for-efforts-to-undermine-the-2020-election|agency=[[Associated Press]]|access-date=August 1, 2023|archive-date=August 1, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230801215018/https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-indicted-for-efforts-to-undermine-the-2020-election|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Grabenstein|first1=Hannah|last2=Serino|first2=Kenichi |date=August 1, 2023 |title=Read the full indictment against Trump for his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election |work=PBS NewsHour|publisher=WETA|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-full-the-indictment-against-trump-for-his-efforts-to-overturn-the-2020-election |access-date=August 1, 2023 |archive-date=August 1, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230801215859/https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-full-the-indictment-against-trump-for-his-efforts-to-overturn-the-2020-election |url-status=live }}</ref>{{sfn|Berris|2023}}
== Constitutional questions ==
In August 2023, two prominent conservative legal scholars, [[William Baude]] and [[Michael Stokes Paulsen]], wrote in a research paper that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump from being president as a consequence of his actions involving attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023}}<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Cabral |first1=Sam |last2=Epstein |first2=Kayla |date=September 9, 2023 |title=The 14th Amendment plan to disqualify Trump, explained |language=en-GB |work=[[BBC News]]|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66690276 |access-date=November 18, 2023 |archive-date=November 16, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231116221332/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66690276 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Liptak |first1=Adam |date=August 10, 2023 |title=Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection-conservatives.html |access-date=December 20, 2023 |archive-date=August 10, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230810235244/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection-conservatives.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Habeshian |first1=Sareen |date=November 18, 2023 |title=Where efforts to disqualify Trump from 2024 ballot stand|work=Axios|url=https://www.axios.com/2023/11/16/trump-efforts-disqualify-2024-ballot-14th-amendment |access-date=November 18, 2023 |archive-date=November 18, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231118011526/https://www.axios.com/2023/11/16/trump-efforts-disqualify-2024-ballot-14th-amendment |url-status=live }}</ref> Conservative legal scholar [[J. Michael Luttig]] and liberal legal scholar [[Laurence Tribe]] soon concurred in an article they co-wrote, arguing Section 3 protections are automatic and "self-executing", independent of congressional action.<ref>{{cite magazine |last1=Luttig |first1=J. Michael|last2=Tribe|first2=Laurence H. |date=August 19, 2023 |title=The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/ |magazine=[[The Atlantic]]|archive-url=https://archive.today/20230820122539/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/ |archive-date=August 20, 2023|access-date=August 20, 2023}}</ref> On January 5, 2024, the US Supreme Court agreed to decide on the case.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Cole |first1=Devan |date=January 5, 2024 |title=Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Trump can be barred from holding office |url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/politics/supreme-court-trump-colorado-14th-amendment-insurrectionist-clause/index.html |access-date=January 6, 2024 |website=CNN |language=en |archive-date=January 6, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240106202647/https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/politics/supreme-court-trump-colorado-14th-amendment-insurrectionist-clause/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
=== Justiciability and laws of evidence ===
The [[Case or Controversy Clause]] of [[Article Three of the United States Constitution#Section 2: Judicial power, jurisdiction, and trial by jury|Article III, Section II]] states that "The judicial Power [of the Supreme Court and such inferior courts the Congress ordains and establishes] shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution... [and] the Laws of the United States".{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=552–553}} The [[Congressional Research Service]] (CRS) has noted that the Supreme Court required that [[subject-matter jurisdiction]] must be established as a "threshold matter" for [[justiciability]] in ''Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment'' (1998),<ref>{{ussc|name=Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment|volume=523|page=83|pin=94|year=1998}}</ref>{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024b|p=2}} and established the following three-part test in ''[[Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife]]'' (1992) for establishing [[Standing (law)|standing]]:
# The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact"—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is: (a) concrete and particularized (i.e. that the injury must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way); and (b) "actual or imminent, not 'conjectural' or 'hypothetical,{{' "}};
# There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be "fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not ... th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court."
# It must be "likely," as opposed to merely "speculative," that the injury will be "redressed by a favorable decision."<ref>{{ussc|name=Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife|volume=504|page=555|pin=560–561|year=1992}}</ref>{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024b|p=2}}
The CRS also notes that the Supreme Court required in ''[[Warth v. Seldin]]'' (1975) that a plaintiff must "ha[ve] 'alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy' as to warrant his invocation of federal court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court's remedial powers on his behalf."<ref>{{ussc|name=Warth v. Seldin|volume=422|page=490|pin=498–499|year=1975}}</ref>{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024b|p=2}} However, the Supreme Court noted in ''ASARCO v. Kadish'' (1989) that it has "recognized often that the constraints of Article III do not apply to state courts, and accordingly the state courts are not bound by the limitations of a case or controversy or other federal rules of justiciability, even when they address issues of federal law, as when they are called upon to interpret the Constitution".<ref>{{ussc|name=ASARCO v. Kadish|volume=490|page=605|pin=617|year=1989}}</ref>{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024b|p=2}} While the [[political question]] doctrine of the Supreme Court for non-justiciability was established in ''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'' (1803),<ref>{{ussc|name=Marbury v. Madison|volume=5|page=137|year=1803}}</ref><ref>{{cite report|last1=Lampe|first1=Joanna R.|date=June 14, 2022|title=The Political Question Doctrine: An Introduction (Part 1)|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10756|access-date=December 27, 2023|archive-date=December 21, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231221072239/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10756|url-status=live}}</ref> the modern test for whether a controversy constitutes a political question was established in ''[[Baker v. Carr]]'' (1962) with six criteria:
# a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department;
# a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it;
# the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion;
# the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government;
# an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made;
# the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.<ref>{{cite report|last1=Lampe|first1=Joanna R.|date=June 14, 2022|title=The Political Question Doctrine: The Doctrine in the Modern Era (Part 3)|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10758|access-date=December 27, 2023|archive-date=March 7, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230307045629/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10758|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=Baker v. Carr|volume=369|page=186|pin=217|year=1962}}</ref>
In establishing the [[constitutional avoidance]] doctrine of [[Judicial review in the United States|judicial review]], the Supreme Court formulated a seven-rule test in ''[[Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority]]'' (1936) for the justiciability of controversies presenting constitutional questions:
# [[Collusive lawsuit]] rule: The Court will not [rule] upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, nonadversary, proceeding, declining because to decide such questions "is legitimate only in the last resort, and as a necessity in the determination of real, earnest and vital controversy between individuals. It never was the thought that, by means of a friendly suit, a party beaten in the legislature could transfer to the courts an inquiry as to the constitutionality of the legislative act."
# [[Ripeness]]: The Court will not "anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it."
# [[Judicial minimalism|Minimalism]]: The Court will not "formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied."
# [[Last resort rule]]: The Court will not [rule] upon a constitutional question, although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of. ... [I]f a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction or general law, the Court will decide only the latter.
# Standing; [[Mootness]]: The Court will not [rule] upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation.
# Constitutional [[estoppel]]: The Court will not [rule] upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.
# Constitutional avoidance canon: "When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided."<ref>{{cite report|last1=Nolan|first1=Andrew|date=September 2, 2014|title=The Doctrine of Constitutional Avoidance: A Legal Overview|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43706|access-date=December 27, 2023|archive-date=December 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231230182132/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43706|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority|volume=297|page=288|pin=346–348|year=1936}}</ref>
Excluding cases covered by the preceding [[Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States|Original Jurisdiction Clause]], the [[Article Three of the United States Constitution#Section 2: Judicial power, jurisdiction, and trial by jury|Appellate Jurisdiction Clause of Article III, Section II]] states that "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=553}} In ''[[Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey]]'' (1988), the Supreme Court held that public or agency reports that "[set] forth... factual findings" have "assume[d] admissibility in the first instance" as [[Evidence (law)|evidence]] in courts under Rule 803 of the [[Federal Rules of Evidence]] (which were enacted by Congress in 1975),<ref name="CRS 5-22-2020" /><ref>{{USPL|93|595}}, {{USStat|88|1926}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey|volume=488|page=153|pin=154|year=1988}}</ref><ref>Fed. Rules Evid. {{fre|803}}</ref> and established a four-part non-exclusive test to determine the trustworthiness of such reports as [[admissible evidence]] if questioned:
# the timeliness of the investigation;
# the investigator's skill or experience;
# whether a hearing was held;
# possible bias when reports are prepared with a view to possible litigation.<ref>{{ussc|name=Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey|volume=488|page=153|pin=167|year=1988}}</ref>
=== "[O]ffice under ... [O]fficer of the United States" ===
{{Main|Officer of the United States}}
In September 2022, the CRS issued a report on Section 3 that cites an opinion article co-authored by [[South Texas College of Law Houston]] professor [[Josh Blackman]] and [[Maynooth University]] law professor Seth Barrett Tillman (which in turn summarized a law review article Blackman and Tillman co-authored) in noting that the Presidency is not explicitly included in the text of Section 3, and as such, could possibly be exempt from the section's terms.{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=2}}<ref>{{cite web |last1=Blackman |first1=Josh |last2=Tillman |first2=Seth Barrett |date=January 20, 2021 |title=Is the President an "officer of the United States" for purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment?|url=https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/20/is-the-president-an-officer-of-the-united-states-for-purposes-of-section-3-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/ |access-date=December 7, 2023 |website=[[The Volokh Conspiracy]] |publisher=[[Reason Foundation]] |archive-date=November 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231130042420/https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/20/is-the-president-an-officer-of-the-united-states-for-purposes-of-section-3-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Blackman and Tillman note that since Trump never took an [[oath of office]] as a [[United States Congress|member of Congress]], nor as a [[State legislature (United States)|state legislator]], nor as a [[State governments of the United States|state executive]] or judicial officer, and has only taken the [[Oath of office of the President of the United States|presidential oath of office]], that Trump can only be disqualified under Section 3 if the President is an "officer of the United States".{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2021a|p=3}}
==== Appointments Clause and other clauses ====
Citing the ''[[Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States]]'' written by [[Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court Associate Justice]] [[Joseph Story]],{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2021a|p=10}} Blackman and Tillman argue that the President is not an officer of the United States when considering usage in [[Article One of the United States Constitution|Article I]], [[Article Two of the United States Constitution|Article II]], and [[Article Six of the United States Constitution|Article VI]] of the phrases "officer of the United States" and "office under the United States" which they contend are [[Jargon#Legal jargon|legal terms of art]] that refer to distinct classes of positions within the federal government.{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2021a|pp=5–21}}{{efn|Blackman and Tillman specifically cite usage in the Impeachment Disqualification Clause of Article I, Section III,{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=544}} the Ineligibility Clause of Article I, Section VI,{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=545}} the Presidential Electors Clause and Presidential Succession Clause of Article II, Section I,{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=549–551}} the Appointments Clause of Article II, Section II,{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=552}} the Commissions Clause of Article II, Section III,{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=552}} the Impeachment Clause of Article II, Section IV,{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=552}} and the Oath or Affirmation Clause and No Religious Test Clause of Article VI.{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=555–556}}}} Blackman and Tillman further argue that the former phrase excludes all legislative branch officers of the federal government, that the elected officials of the federal government are not included among the "officers of the United States" under ''[[Mississippi v. Johnson]]'' (1867),<ref>{{ussc|name=Mississippi v. Johnson|volume=71|page=475|year=1867}}</ref> ''[[United States v. Hartwell]]'' (1867),<ref>{{ussc|name=United States v. Hartwell|volume=73|page=385|year=1867}}</ref> ''[[United States v. Mouat]]'' (1888),<ref>{{ussc|name=United States v. Mouat|volume=124|page=303|year=1888}}</ref> and ''[[Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board]]'' (2010),<ref>{{ussc|name=Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board|volume=561|page=477|year=2010}}</ref> and that there was no drift in the meaning of "officer of the United States" between the ratification of the federal constitution in 1788 and the ''Mouat'' decision twenty years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868.{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2021a|pp=21–31}}{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024a|p=5}} Based upon their law review article, Blackman and Tillman also co-authored a law review article in response to Baude and Paulsen.{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2023}}
Blackman and Tillman cite the fact that the Committee of Style at the [[Constitutional Convention (United States)|1787 Constitutional Convention]] shortened the use of "Officer of the United States" in the [[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 6: Vacancy and disability|Presidential Succession Clause of Article II, Section I]] to "Officer" and changed "[The President, the Vice President] and ''other'' civil Officers of the United States"{{efn|in "[The President] shall be removed from his office on impeachment by the House of representatives, and conviction by the Senate, for treason or bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States; the Vice President and ''other'' civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on impeachment and conviction as aforesaid;"}} [emphasis added] to "The President, Vice President and ''all'' civil Officers of the United States" [emphasis added] in the [[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Section 4: Impeachment|Impeachment Clause of Article II, Section IV]] as evidence that the phrases "officer of the United States" and "office under the United States" were not used indiscriminately by the Framers.{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2021a|pp=9–10}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=551–552}}<ref>{{Cite web |date=1911 |editor-last=Farrand |editor-first=Max |title=The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Volume II|url=https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/farrand-the-records-of-the-federal-convention-of-1787-vol-2 |access-date=December 15, 2023 |website=Online Library of Liberty |language=en |archive-date=December 15, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231215081102/https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/farrand-the-records-of-the-federal-convention-of-1787-vol-2 |url-status=live }}</ref> Despite the fact that the [[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 2: Method of choosing electors|Presidential Electors Clause of Article II, Section I]] requires that "no ... Person holding an Office ... under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector",{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=549–550}} that the [[No Religious Test Clause]] of Article VI requires that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office ... under the United States",{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024a|p=5}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=556}} and that the [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 7: Judgment in cases of impeachment; Punishment on conviction|Impeachment Disqualification Clause of Article I, Section III]] states that conviction in a [[Federal impeachment trial in the United States|federal impeachment trial]] extends to "disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office ... under the United States",{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=544}}<ref name="Somin Volokh Conspiracy 9-16-2023">{{cite web |last1=Somin |first1=Ilya |date=September 16, 2023 |title=Why President Trump is an "Officer" who Can be Disqualified From Holding Public Office Under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment|url=https://reason.com/volokh/2023/09/16/why-president-trump-is-an-officer-who-can-be-disqualified-from-holding-public-office-under-section-3-of-the-14th-amendment/ |access-date=December 14, 2023|website=The Volokh Conspiracy |publisher=Reason Foundation |archive-date=December 17, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231217020500/https://reason.com/volokh/2023/09/16/why-president-trump-is-an-officer-who-can-be-disqualified-from-holding-public-office-under-section-3-of-the-14th-amendment/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Blackman and Tillman argue that elected officials do not hold "offices under the United States" under the [[Constitution of the United States#Articles|Constitution's first seven articles]] and take no position on whether the Presidency and Vice Presidency are "office[s] under the United States" in Section 3.{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2021a|pp=17; 25}}<ref>{{Cite journal| last1=Tillman |first1=Seth Barrett|last2=Blackman|first2=Josh|date=2023 |title=Officers and Offices of the Constitution Part IV: The 'Office ... under the United States' Drafting Convention |journal=S. Tex Law Rev.|volume=62| issue=4 |ssrn=4432246 |ssrn-access=free |language=en}}</ref>
Blackman and Tillman also claim that the [[Clerk of the United States House of Representatives|Clerk of the House of Representatives]] and the [[Secretary of the United States Senate|Secretary of the Senate]] do not take an oath of office pursuant to the [[Article Six of the United States Constitution#Oaths|Oath or Affirmation Clause of Article VI]].{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2021a|p=15}} Conversely, after examining appointment practices during the [[1st United States Congress]], and using a ''[[corpus linguistics]]'' analysis of the ''[[The Federalist Papers]]'', the [[Anti-Federalist Papers]], ''[[Jonathan Elliot (historian)|Elliot's Debates]]'', ''[[Max Farrand|Farrand's Records]]'', ''[[An Universal Etymological English Dictionary]]'' compiled by lexicographer [[Nathan Bailey]], and other contemporaneous dictionaries, [[Antonin Scalia Law School]] professor Jennifer L. Mascott has argued that the [[Originalism|original public meaning]] of "officer" as used in the [[Appointments Clause]] of Article II, Section II encompassed any government official with responsibility for an ongoing governmental duty and likely extended to officials not currently appointed as Article II officers.{{sfn|Mascott|2018}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=552}} Citing Mascott,{{sfn|Mascott|2018|pp=459–460}} Myles S. Lynch notes in a law review article published by the ''William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal'' in 2021 that the current controlling case for whether a position is an officer of the United States or a federal government employee is ''[[Buckley v. Valeo]]'' (1976),{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=158–160}} where the Supreme Court established that "any appointee exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States is an 'Officer of the United States.{{' "}}<ref>{{ussc|name=Buckley v. Valeo|volume=424|page=1|pin=126|year=1976}}</ref>
In an opinion issued in 2007 reviewing the ''Buckley v. Valeo'' decision under the terms of the Appointments Clause, the [[Office of Legal Counsel]] (OLC) concluded that "A position to which is delegated by legal authority a portion of the sovereign powers of the federal government and that is 'continuing' is a federal office... [and a] person who would hold such a position must be ... an 'Officer of the United States{{' "}}.<ref>{{cite report|last=Bradbury|first=Steven G.|author-link=Steven G. Bradbury|date=April 16, 2007|title=Officers of the United States Within the Meaning of the Appointments Clause|publisher=Office of Legal Counsel|volume=31, Opinions|pages=73–122|url=https://www.justice.gov/file/494641/dl?inline|access-date=January 11, 2024}}</ref> Mascott notes that the OLC and the Supreme Court in cases subsequent to ''Buckley v. Valeo'' have expanded the original public meaning of "officer" to include positions that the 1st United States Congress would not have considered "officers", but also restricted the original public meaning to include only positions with a "significant" delegation of sovereign power.{{sfn|Mascott|2018|pp=462–470}} Lynch argues that Mascott's conclusion about the original public meaning of "officer" is consistent with [[Judicial interpretation#Basis for judicial interpretation|functionalist]] and [[Legal formalism|formalist]] tests established in the Supreme Court's rulings in ''United States v. Hartwell'' and ''[[United States v. Germaine]]'' (1878) for what positions qualify as "officers".{{sfn|Lynch|2021|p=161}}<ref>{{ussc|name=United States v. Hartwell|volume=73|page=385|pin=393|year=1867}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=United States v. Germaine|volume=99|page=508|pin=510–512|year=1878}}</ref>{{sfn|Murrill|2018|pp=18–22}} Following the Court's opinions in ''United States v. Hartwell'', ''United States v. Germaine'', and ''Buckley v. Valeo'', the 2007 OLC opinion, and Mascott's research, Lynch argues that the Presidency and Vice Presidency are "offices under the United States" and the President and Vice President are "officers of the United States", because the Presidency is clearly delegated part of the sovereign powers of the United States for a period of continuous exercise and both positions are held by persons who obtain the positions by constitutionally mandated procedures.{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=161–162}}
In delegating to Congress the power to pass legislation providing for the case of a dual vacancy in the Presidency and Vice Presidency, the Presidential Succession Clause states that Congress shall "declar[e] what Officer shall ... act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly".{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=551}} Pursuant to the Presidential Succession Clause, the [[2nd United States Congress]] passed the [[Presidential Succession Act#Presidential Succession Act of 1792|Presidential Succession Act of 1792]] that included the [[Speaker of the United States House of Representatives|Speaker of the House of Representatives]] and [[President pro tempore of the United States Senate|President pro tempore of the Senate]] in the [[United States presidential line of succession|presidential line of succession]].{{sfn|Neale|2020a|p=3}}{{sfn|Continuity of Government Commission|2009|pp=25–29}} The CRS and the [[Continuity of Government Commission]] have noted that the use of "Officer" in the clause caused debate in Congress at the time over whether including legislative branch officers in the presidential line of succession was constitutional, with opponents of the bill (who included [[James Madison]]) arguing that the use of "Officer" in the clause referred to "Officer of the United States" and that officers of the United States were limited to executive branch officers.{{sfn|Neale|2020a|p=3}}{{sfn|Continuity of Government Commission|2009|pp=25–29}} After the [[49th United States Congress]] removed the Speaker and the President pro tem from the presidential line of succession when passing the [[Presidential Succession Act#Presidential Succession Act of 1886|Presidential Succession Act of 1886]],{{sfn|Continuity of Government Commission|2009|pp=29–30}}{{sfn|Neale|2020a|p=4}} the [[80th United States Congress]] restored the positions to the presidential line of succession under the [[Presidential Succession Act#Presidential Succession Act of 1947|Presidential Succession Act of 1947]].{{sfn|Continuity of Government Commission|2009|pp=32–33}}{{sfn|Neale|2020a|pp=4–6}}
While congressional debate on both bills revisited whether including legislative branch officers in the presidential line of succession was constitutional, the 80th United States Congress restored their inclusion when considering that the Presidential Succession Act of 1792 was in effect for 94 years before being repealed, and was the contemporaneous effectuation of the Presidential Succession Clause, and that some of the members of the 2nd United States Congress who supported the bill were also Constitutional Convention delegates.{{sfn|Neale|2020a|pp=7–8}}{{sfn|Continuity of Government Commission|2009|pp=29–30}} Additionally, the 80th United States Congress also took into consideration the Supreme Court's ruling in ''Lamar v. United States'' (1916) that members of the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] are officers of the United States in upholding a conviction under a federal penal statute that criminalized [[Impersonating a public servant|impersonating]] an officer of the United States for the purpose of committing [[fraud]].{{sfn|Neale|2020a|p=8}}<ref>{{ussc|name=Lamar v. United States|volume=241|page=103|pin=111–113|year=1916}}</ref> Until the ratification of the [[Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|17th Amendment]],{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=563}} [[United States Senate|Senators]] were chosen in [[indirect election]]s by state legislatures under [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 1: Composition and election of senators|Article I, Section III]] and James Madison refers to the indirect elections in ''[[Federalist No. 62]]'' as an "appointment" four times.{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=374–376; 543}}<ref>{{cite web|title=The Avalon Project – Federalist No 62|url=https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed62.asp |access-date=December 12, 2023 |website=[[Avalon Project]] |publisher=[[Yale Law School]] |place=[[New Haven, Connecticut|New Haven, CT]] |archive-date=November 6, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231106073515/https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed62.asp |url-status=live }}</ref> However, [[University of Richmond School of Law]] professor Kurt T. Lash and the CRS note that before the Senate dismissed the [[Article of impeachment|impeachment article]] brought by the House against [[List of United States senators from Tennessee|Tennessee Senator]] [[William Blount]] in 1797 due to lack of jurisdiction (partly because the [[List of United States senators expelled or censured|Senate had already expelled]] Blount), the Senate rejected a resolution that Senators were "civil officers of the United States" subject to impeachment.{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=11–14}}{{sfn|Cole|Garvey|2023|pp=16–17}}
In ''[[Minor v. Happersett]]'' (1875), the Supreme Court refers to the President in ''[[Obiter dictum|obiter dicta]]'' as being among the "elective officers of the United States" along with the Vice President and members of Congress.<ref>{{ussc|name=Minor v. Happersett|volume=88|page=162|pin=170–171|year=1875}}</ref> In ''[[Burr conspiracy|United States v. Burr]]'' (1807), [[Chief Justice of the United States|Chief Justice]] [[John Marshall]], presiding as the Circuit Justice for Virginia,<ref>{{cite web |title=Executive Privilege: Overview – U.S. Constitution Annotated|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-2/clause-3/executive-privilege-overview |access-date=December 14, 2023 |website=[[Legal Information Institute]] |publisher=[[Cornell Law School]] |archive-date=December 14, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231214194436/https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-2/clause-3/executive-privilege-overview |url-status=live }}</ref> noted that "By the Constitution of the United States, the President, as well as any other officer of the government, may be impeached...".<ref>{{cite court|litigants=United States v. Burr|court=C.C.D.Va.|reporter=Fed. Cas.|vol=30|opinion=30, no. 14,692d|date=1807|url=https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_1s19.html|access-date=December 14, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=Mississippi v. Johnson|source=f|volume=71|page=475|pin=479|date=1875}}</ref> [[George Mason University]] law professor [[Ilya Somin]] has argued that the exclusion of the President from the "civil officers of the United States" in the Impeachment Clause of Article II, Section IV is due to the President being the [[Powers of the president of the United States#Commander-in-chief|Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces]] under [[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 1: Command of military; Opinions of cabinet secretaries; Pardons|Article II, Section II]], that use of "appointment" in the Appointments Clause is not mutually exclusive from the use of "election", that the presidential oath of office effectively commissions the President, and that Blackman and Tillman's argument that the Presidency is not an "office under the United States" would lead to the conclusion that impeached and convicted federal government officials could still serve as president but not be appointed to lower federal government positions.<ref name="Somin Volokh Conspiracy 9-16-2023" />{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=552}} Also, under the [[Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution|12th Amendment]], "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President", and as a consequence, the Vice Presidency has the same eligibility requirements as the Presidency.{{sfn|Neale|2020b|pp=3–4}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=561}}
The Appointments Clause states that "[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors... and all other Officers of the United States... but the Congress may ... vest the Appointment of ... inferior Officers... in the President alone",{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=551}} while the [[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 6: Officers' commissions|Commissions Clause of Article II, Section III]] states that "[The President] ... shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=552}} The Oath or Affirmation Clause states that "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned... and all executive and judicial Officers... of the United States... shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution".{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=555–556}} While the Oath or Affirmation Clause does not explicitly require an [[Oath of office of the vice president of the United States|oath of office of the Vice President]], the [[An act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths|Oath Administration Act]] passed by the 1st United States Congress pursuant to the Oath or Affirmation Clause (and which remains in effect) requires that "...the said oath or affirmation ... [required by Article VI] ... shall be administered to [the President of the Senate]" and the Vice President is the President of the Senate under [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 4: Vice president as president of Senate|Article I, Section III]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Vice President's Swearing-In Ceremony|url=http://www.inaugural.senate.gov/days-events/vice-presidents-swearing-in-ceremony |access-date=January 17, 2017 |publisher=[[United States Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies]] |archive-date=January 18, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170118053658/http://www.inaugural.senate.gov/days-events/vice-presidents-swearing-in-ceremony |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{USStat|1|23}}, {{USPL|1|1}}, {{USC|2|22}}</ref>{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=544}} In ''[[Federalist No. 68]]'', [[Alexander Hamilton]] described the indirect election of the President and Vice President by the [[United States Electoral College]] as an "appointment" four times.{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=410–412}}<ref>{{cite web |title=The Avalon Project – Federalist No 68|url=https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp |access-date=September 21, 2023 |website=[[Avalon Project]] |publisher=[[Yale Law School]] |place=[[New Haven, Connecticut|New Haven, CT]] |archive-date=September 24, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220924054528/https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp |url-status=live }}</ref>
Also, in every [[United States presidential election|presidential election]] from [[1788–1789 United States presidential election|1788]] through [[1828 United States presidential election|1828]], multiple state legislatures selected their presidential electors by discretionary appointment rather than on the basis of a poll, while the [[South Carolina General Assembly]] did so in [[United States presidential elections in South Carolina|every presidential election]] through [[1860 United States presidential election|1860]], and the [[Florida Legislature]] and the [[Colorado General Assembly]] selected their presidential electors by discretionary appointment in [[1868 United States presidential election|1868]] and [[1876 United States presidential election|1876]] respectively.<ref name="Williams 2012 p. 1567">{{cite journal |last1=Williams |first1=Norman R. |year=2012 |title=Why the National Popular Vote Compact is Unconstitutional|url=https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2686&context=lawreview |url-status=live|journal=[[BYU Law Review]] |publisher=[[J. Reuben Clark Law School]]|volume=2012|issue=5|page=1567|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210506175208/https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2686&context=lawreview |archive-date=May 6, 2021 |access-date=October 14, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=1868 Presidential General Election Results|website=[[Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections]]|url=https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=1868|access-date=February 2, 2024}}</ref> In practice, the Presidential Electors Clause bars all federal government employees from serving as presidential electors in addition to explicitly barring members of Congress.<ref>{{cite report|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32611 |title=The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections |last1=Neale |first1=Thomas H. |date=May 15, 2017 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |pages=5–6 |access-date=December 11, 2023 |archive-date=March 2, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210302054826/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/rl/rl32611 |url-status=live }}</ref> The [[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 7: Salary|Domestic Emoluments Clause of Article II, Section I]] requires that "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation... during the Period for which he shall have been elected",<ref name="CRS 1-27-2021">{{cite report|last1=Hickey|first1=Kevin J.|last2=Foster|first2=Michael A.|date=January 27, 2021|title=The Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11086|access-date=December 31, 2023|archive-date=April 22, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210422230231/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11086|url-status=live}}</ref>{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=551}} and the current salary of the President and Vice President are $400,000 per year and $235,100 per year respectively.<ref>{{usc|3|102}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last1=Groppe|first1=Maureeen |date=February 14, 2019 |title=Vice President Pence's pay bump is not as big as Republicans wanted|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/14/vice-president-pences-salary-rising-but-not-much-gop-wanted/2872326002/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190415044023/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/14/vice-president-pences-salary-rising-but-not-much-gop-wanted/2872326002/ |archive-date=April 15, 2019 |access-date=April 15, 2019 |website=[[USA Today]] |language=en}}</ref> While the text of the [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 5: Speaker and other officers; Impeachment|House Officers Clause of Article I, Section II]] does not explicitly require the Speaker of the House to be a House member,<ref name="Heitshusen CRS 5-16-2017">{{cite report|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/97-780 |title=The Speaker of the House: House Officer, Party Leader, and Representative |last1=Heitshusen |first1=Valerie |date=May 16, 2017 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |page=2 |access-date=October 5, 2023 |archive-date=January 14, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210114194706/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/97-780 |url-status=live }}</ref>{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=543}} all Speakers have been House members and the text of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 assumes that the Speaker is a House member in requiring the Speaker's resignation upon succession to the Presidency due to the [[Ineligibility Clause]] of Article I, Section VI.<ref>{{cite report|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44243 |title=Electing the Speaker of the House of Representatives: Frequently Asked Questions |last1=Heitshusen |first1=Valerie |date=May 31, 2023 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |page=2 |access-date=October 5, 2023 |archive-date=October 4, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231004185257/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44243 |url-status=live }}</ref>{{sfn|Neale|2020a|p=5}}
The Ineligibility Clause states that "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under ... the United States ... and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=545}} Even though the Clerk of the House of Representatives is not a House member and no Secretary of the Senate has been an incumbent Senator,<ref name="Heitshusen CRS 5-16-2017" /><ref>{{cite report|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/98-747 |title=Secretary of the Senate: Legislative and Administrative Duties |last1=Straus |first1=Jacob R.|date=February 12, 2013 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |pages=5–6 |access-date=December 12, 2023 |archive-date=September 29, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210929083445/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/98-747|url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=U.S. Senate: About the Secretary of the Senate – Secretaries|url=https://www.senate.gov/about/officers-staff/secretary-of-the-senate/secretaries.htm|website=senate.gov|publisher=United States Senate |access-date=December 20, 2023 |archive-date=December 12, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231212161509/https://www.senate.gov/about/officers-staff/secretary-of-the-senate/secretaries.htm|url-status=live }}</ref> the Oath Administration Act provides that "...the oath or affirmation [required by Article VI]... shall be administered ... to the Speaker... and to the [C]lerk" and that "the [S]ecretary of the Senate... shall... [take] the oath or affirmation [required by Article VI]".<ref>{{USStat|1|23}}, {{USPL|1|1}}, {{USC|2|25}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives – About The Clerk|url=https://clerk.house.gov/About#OverviewContact |access-date=October 15, 2023 |publisher=Clerk of the United States House of Representatives |archive-date=July 1, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230701130402/https://clerk.house.gov/About#OverviewContact |url-status=live }}</ref> In holding in ''[[NLRB v. Noel Canning|National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning]]'' (2014) that the [[Recess appointment|Recess Appointments Clause of Article II, Section II]] does not authorize the President to make appointments while the Senate is in ''[[pro forma]]'' sessions,{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=552}} the Supreme Court cited ''Marbury v. Madison'' and ''[[McCulloch v. Maryland]]'' (1819) in concluding that "The longstanding 'practice of the government' ... can inform [the] determination of 'what the law is{{' "}}.{{sfn|Murrill|2018|pp=22–23}}<ref>{{ussc|name=NLRB v. Noel Canning|volume=573|page=513|docket=12-1281|slip=7|year=2014}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=Marbury v. Madison|volume=5|page=137|pin=177|year=1803}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=McCulloch v. Maryland|volume=17|page=316|pin=401|year=1819}}</ref>
In upholding the [[Congressional charter|authority of Congress to issue]] the [[Articles of association|corporate charter]] for the [[Second Bank of the United States]] in 1816 under the [[Necessary and Proper Clause]] of Article I, Section VIII, the Supreme Court noted in ''McCulloch v. Maryland'' that the 1st United States Congress actively debated whether issuing the corporate charter for the [[First Bank of the United States]] was constitutional, but "After being resisted first in the fair and open field of debate, and afterwards in the executive cabinet... [the bill] became a law" in 1791, and as the law was "[a]n exposition of the Constitution, deliberately established by legislative acts... [and] not to be lightly disregarded", the Court concluded that whether Congress had the authority to incorporate a bank by the time of the ''McCulloch'' decision could "scarcely be considered as an open question."<ref>{{ussc|name=McCulloch v. Maryland|volume=17|page=316|pin=401–402|year=1819}}</ref><ref>{{Cite report|url=https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RS22230.pdf |title=Congressional or Federal Charters: Overview and Enduring Issues|last1=Kosar|first1=Kevin R. |date=April 19, 2013 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |pages=1–2 |access-date=May 3, 2022 |website=[[Federation of American Scientists]] |archive-date=May 17, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220517232312/https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RS22230.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite report|last1=Hogue|first1=Henry B.|date=September 8, 2022|title=Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices|publisher=Congressional Research Service|page=8|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47236|access-date=December 21, 2023|archive-date=December 20, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231220220853/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47236|url-status=live}}</ref>{{sfn|Murrill|2018|pp=18–22}} Along with Blackman and Tillman,{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2021a}}{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2023|pp=185–229}} Lash argues that the exclusion of the Presidency in Section 3 and from the "civil officers of the United States" in the Impeachment Clause of Article II, Section IV leads to the conclusion that the President is not an officer of the United States following ''[[Statutory interpretation#Textual canons|expressio unius]]''.{{sfn|Lash|2023|p=5}}{{sfn|Brannon|2023|p=51}}{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024a|p=2}}
Blackman and Tillman also argue that because the President does not take an oath of office pursuant to the Oath or Affirmation Clause and that the text of the presidential oath of office provided in [[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 8: Oath or affirmation|Article II, Section I]] does not include the word "support",{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=551}} that the President is exempted from the terms of Section 3.{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2021a|p=24}}{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2023|p=186}} Conversely, the CRS suggests that the fact that the text of the presidential oath of office is specifically provided in Article II, Section I does not mean that it is not also an oath of office within the terms of the Oath or Affirmation Clause or Section 3, and also suggests that it would be anomalous that the presidential oath of office would exempt the Presidency from both Section 3 and the [[Religious qualifications for public office in the United States|proscription against religious tests as a qualification]] for "office[s] under the United States" in the No Religious Test Clause, but that the Vice Presidency would remain subject to both Section 3 and the No Religious Test Clause.{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024a|p=5}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=556}} The [[Establishment Clause]] of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|1st Amendment]] also provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an [[State religion|establishment of religion]]".{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=558}}
Noting Blackman and Tillman's arguments about the meaning of "officer of the United States" and "office under the United States" in the first seven articles,{{sfn|Vlahoplus|2023|pp=6–7}} John Vlahoplus argues in a law review article accepted by the ''[[British Journal of American Legal Studies]]'' in May 2023 that 19th century usage of the phrases included the Presidency citing an 1834 [[United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs|House Foreign Affairs Committee]] report that concluded that the [[Foreign Emoluments Clause]] of [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Section 9: Limits on Federal power|Article I, Section IX]] applied to the President.{{sfn|Vlahoplus|2023|pp=7–10}} The Foreign Emoluments Clause states that "no Person holding any Office … under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."<ref name="CRS 1-27-2021" />{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=549}} Also in contrast to Blackman and Tillman, Vlahoplus cites the Supreme Court in ''United States v. Mouat'' as holding that "any person holding employment or appointment under the United States" were "persons serving under the Government of the United States."{{sfn|Vlahoplus|2023|p=11}}<ref>{{ussc|name=United States v. Mouat|volume=124|page=303|pin=305–306|year=1888}}</ref> The CRS notes that the Constitution refers to the Presidency as an "office" in total 25 times,{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024a|p=2}} and as such, Baude and Paulsen,{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=104–112}} Vlahoplus,{{sfn|Vlahoplus|2023}} and [[University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law|University of Maryland School of Law]] professor Mark A. Graber all argue that the Presidency must be an "office under the United States" and the President must be an "officer of the United States" following the [[Plain meaning rule|plain meaning of the text]].{{sfn|Graber|2023a}}{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024a|p=5}}{{sfn|Brannon|2023|pp=21–24}}
==== Section 3 drafting and ratification history ====
Citing a law review article written by [[Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law|Indiana University School of Law]] professor [[Gerard Magliocca]],{{sfn|Magliocca|2021}} the CRS report notes an exchange in congressional debate between [[List of United States senators from Maryland|Maryland Senator]] [[Reverdy Johnson]] and [[List of United States senators from Maine|Maine Senator]] [[Lot M. Morrill]] during the drafting process of Section 3 in concluding that it could be more likely that the President is an officer of the United States subject to disqualification under the section:
{{blockquote|text=[Mr. JOHNSON.] ... I do not see but that any one of these gentlemen may be elected President or Vice President of the United States, and why did you omit to exclude them? I do not understand them to be excluded from the privilege of holding the two highest offices in the gift of the nation. ...
Mr. MORRILL. Let me call the Senator's attention to the words "or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States."
Mr. JOHNSON. Perhaps I am wrong as to the exclusion from the Presidency; no doubt I am; but I was misled by noticing the specific exclusion in the case of Senators and Representatives. ...|multiline=yes|title=''[[Congressional Record|Congressional Globe]]'' Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866. p. 2899.<ref>{{Cite web |date=May 30, 1866 |publisher=[[Congressional Record|Congressional Globe]] |work=[[39th United States Congress]] |title=In Senate: Wednesday, May 30, 1866: Reconstruction |url=https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=20 |access-date=2023-12-09 |via=The Library of Congress |language=en |archive-date=December 9, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231209021137/https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=20 |url-status=live}}</ref>{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=2}}{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024a|p=4}}}}
Along with Magliocca, Baude and Paulsen cite the exchange between Senators Johnson and Morrill in disputing Blackman and Tillman's argument, and argue further that Blackman and Tillman's argument "implausibly splits linguistic hairs".{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|p=109}} Vlahoplus that argues that in the context of Section 3 the President is an officer of the United States and the Presidency is an office under the United States citing the 1862 statute formulating the [[Ironclad Oath]], which said "every person elected or appointed to any office of honor or profit under the government of the United States, either in the civil, military, or naval departments of the public service, excepting the President of the United States".<ref>{{Cite news |date=March 13, 1863 |title=Senate Special Session|page=98|url=https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/TestOath1863_CongressionalGlobe.pdf |access-date=December 23, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=June 5, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230605025444/https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/TestOath1863_CongressionalGlobe.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> Vlahoplus argues that this acknowledged the Presidency as an "office ... under the government of the United States".{{sfn|Vlahoplus|2023|pp=10–11}} Lynch likewise cites the Ironclad Oath in arguing that the President is an officer of the United States,{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=165–167}} and Lynch also cites the [[United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia|U.S. Circuit Court of the District of Columbia]] ruling affirmed in the Supreme Court's ruling in ''Kendall v. United States ex Rel. Stokes'' (1838) as stating "The president himself . . . is but an officer of the United States".{{sfn|Lynch|2021|p=163}}<ref>{{ussc|name=Kendall v. United States ex Rel. Stokes|volume=37|page=524|year=1838}}</ref>
Noting that Story's ''Commentaries'' references the Blount impeachment trial in arguing that the President, Vice President, and members of Congress of the federal government were not "civil officers of the United States", Lash argues that the framers of Section 3 accepted Story's analysis of the Blount impeachment as authoritative and was cited extensively in newspaper coverage during the ratification of the 14th Amendment,{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=12–13; 48–50}} and Lash argues that Reverdy Johnson was following ''expressio unius'' in his exchange with Morrill given his familiarity with the Blount impeachment trial.{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=12; 33–37}} Conversely, Graber has noted that a congressional report presented to the [[39th United States Congress]] concluded that "a little consideration of this matter will show that 'officers of' and 'officers under' the United States are ... 'indiscriminately used in the Constitution.{{' "}}<ref>{{cite web |last1=Graber |first1=Mark A. |date=February 23, 2023|title=Disqualification From Office: Donald Trump v. the 39th Congress|url=https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/disqualification-office-donald-trump-v-39th-congress |access-date=December 16, 2023 |website=[[Lawfare (website)|Lawfare]]|publisher=[[Brookings Institution]]/Lawfare Institute |archive-date=December 16, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231216222604/https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/disqualification-office-donald-trump-v-39th-congress|url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |date=July 19, 1866 |title=First Session of the 39th Congress|url=https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=074/llcg074.db&recNum=100 |journal=[[United States House Journal]] |publisher=[[Library of Congress]] |page=3939 |access-date=December 16, 2023 |archive-date=December 16, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231216222604/https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=074/llcg074.db&recNum=100 |url-status=live }}</ref> Surveying congressional debate in the ''Congressional Globe'', Graber states that no members of Congress during the drafting of the 14th Amendment saw any distinction between the presidential oath of office and the oath of office required by the Oath or Affirmation Clause and most members of Congress involved in the drafting typically referred to the President as an "officer of the United States" and the Presidency as an "office under the United States".{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=17–24}}
Likewise, Vlahoplus states that members of Congress saw no distinction between the presidential oath of office and the oath of office required by the Oath or Affirmation Clause.{{sfn|Vlahoplus|2023|pp=10–11}} Vlahoplus argues that there is an "essential harmony" between the phrases "officer of the United States" and "office under the United States" in concluding that the President is an "officer of the United States" and the Presidency is an "office under the United States".{{sfn|Vlahoplus|2023|pp=21–25}} While Lash notes that Republican members of Congress ridiculed President [[Andrew Johnson]] for referring to the President as the "chief civil executive officer of the United States",{{sfn|Lash|2023|p=13}} Vlahoplus notes that Presidents, beginning with George Washington and through James A. Garfield, were commonly referred to by the general public and by the 39th United States Congress specifically as the "first executive officer of the United States" and the "chief executive officer of the United States" and in reference to the presidential election process, the constitutional position as head of the executive branch.{{sfn|Vlahoplus|2023|pp=16–19}} Also, the Supreme Court stated in ''[[Nixon v. Fitzgerald]]'' (1982) that the delegation of executive power under the [[Vesting Clauses|Vesting Clause of Article II, Section I]] "establishes the President as the chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch".<ref>{{ussc|name=Nixon v. Fitzgerald|volume=457|page=731|pin=749–750|year=1982}}</ref>{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=549}}
In light of the exchange between Senators Reverdy Johnson and Lot Morrill on Section 3, Magliocca argues that Congress did not intend and the public at the time would not have understood the text of Section 3 to mean that [[Jefferson Davis]] could not have served as a representative or senator, but could have served as president of the United States after serving as [[President of the Confederate States of America|President of the Confederate States]].{{sfn|Magliocca|2021|pp=10–11}} Lynch likewise argues that it is unlikely that the framers of Section 3 and the public would have understood the text to mean that an ex-Confederate could be elected President,{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=162–165}} while Graber argues that congressional debate on the drafting of the 14th Amendment demonstrates that the clause was explicitly intended to prevent ex-Confederate officials from assuming federal offices.{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=4–7}} Vlahoplus also cites the Johnson-Morrill exchange and contemporaneous newspaper coverage of the 14th Amendment's drafting and ratification debates that explicitly refer to Jefferson Davis in the context of Section 3 in arguing that Section 3 applies to the Presidency.{{sfn|Vlahoplus|2023|pp=7–10}} Conversely, Lash argues that the congressional and ratification debates on Section 3 focused on preventing Jefferson Davis from returning to Congress and preventing presidential electors from voting for Davis rather than Davis from serving as President or Vice President.{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=18–19; 46–48}}
Citing a proposal for the 14th Amendment drafted by [[List of United States representatives from Kentucky|Kentucky Representative]] [[Samuel McKee (politician, born 1833)|Samuel McKee]] that explicitly included the President and Vice President among the offices from which disqualified persons would be barred,<ref>{{cite journal |date=January 16, 1866 |title=Second Session of the 40th Congress |url=https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=079/llcg079.db&recNum=919 |journal=[[United States Senate Journal]] |publisher=[[Library of Congress]] |page=556 |access-date=January 1, 2024 |archive-date=January 7, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240107020940/https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=079/llcg079.db&recNum=919 |url-status=live }}</ref> Lash argues that the President and Vice President were omitted from the text of Section 3 intentionally.{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=14–29}}{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024a|pp=2–3}} However, the CRS notes that the text of McKee's proposal does not appear in the journal of the [[United States Congressional Joint Committee on Reconstruction|Joint Committee on Reconstruction]] that drafted the 14th Amendment and was instead referred to the [[United States House Committee on the Judiciary|House Judiciary Committee]], and the CRS also notes that McKee's proposal never received a vote in Congress and there is no clear direct evidence that it was even considered.{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024a|pp=3–5}} The CRS also notes that a bill submitted by [[List of United States representatives from Massachusetts|Massachusetts Representative]] [[George S. Boutwell]] that required disqualification from "any office under the Government of the United States" also never received a vote in Congress, and that the language that was ultimately included in Section 3 was an edited version of a proposal drafted by [[List of United States senators from New Hampshire|New Hampshire Senator]] [[Daniel Clark (New Hampshire politician)|Daniel Clark]], which was proposed by [[List of United States senators from Michigan|Michigan Senator]] [[Jacob M. Howard]] after Reverdy Johnson successfully moved to strike Section 3 from the proposal for the 14th Amendment as initially reported to the Senate.{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024a|pp=4–5}}{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=29–33}}{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=14–17}}
Vlahoplus also cites a pair of official legal opinions issued by [[United States Attorney General|Attorney General]] [[Henry Stanbery]] in 1867 on federal statutes that would enforce Section 3 pending the ratification of the 14th Amendment that concluded that the "state executive and judicial officers" in the clause included state governors following the plain meaning of the text and that the Presidency falls within the definition of "officer of the United States" in Stanbery’s opinions.{{sfn|Vlahoplus|2023|pp=13–15}} In remarks made on the final draft of Section 3 at the final House debate, [[List of United States representatives from Pennsylvania|Pennsylvania Representative]] [[Thaddeus Stevens]] stated that "The third section has been wholly changed by substituting the ineligibility of certain high officers for the disenfranchisement of all rebels until 1870. This I cannot look upon as an improvement. … In my judgment it endangers the government of the country, both State and national; and may give the next Congress and President to the reconstructed rebels."<ref name="Congressional Globe 6-13-1866">{{Cite web |date=June 13, 1866 |publisher=Congressional Globe |work=39th United States Congress |title=In Senate: June 13, 1866: Reconstruction |url= https://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/073/0200/02703148.tif|access-date=February 7, 2024 |via=The Library of Congress |page= 3148–3149 |language=en }}</ref>{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=38–39}} Citing Stevens, Lash concludes that it is unclear whether Section 3 applies to the presidential oath of office and bars individuals from holding the Presidency but concedes that Section 3 could be read to include the President.{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=57–62}} Reiterating the exchange between Senators Johnson and Morrill, the CRS concludes that the drafting history of the 14th Amendment may undercut the inference that the President and Vice President were deliberately omitted from Section 3.{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024a|pp=4–5}}
=== "[I]nsurrection or rebellion" ===
{{see also|List of incidents of civil unrest in the United States}}
In its September 2022 report on Section 3, the CRS notes that the Constitution does not define what qualifies as an insurrection or a rebellion but that the [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Section 8: Powers of Congress|Militia Clause of Article I, Section VIII]] authorizes Congress to pass laws to "provide for calling forth the Militia to, execute the Laws of the Union, [and] suppress Insurrections",{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=3}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=547}} while Baude and Paulsen note that [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Section 9: Limits on Federal power|Article I, Section IX]] states that "The Privilege of the Writ of ''[[Habeas corpus in the United States|Habeas Corpus]]'' shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|p=73}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=548}} The CRS, Baude and Paulsen, and Lynch note that Congress passed the [[Insurrection Act of 1807|Insurrection Act]] and [[Militia Acts of 1792|Militia Acts]] pursuant to the Militia Clause, that the Insurrection Act and Militia Acts authorize the President to use the militia and armed forces to prevent "unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States [that] make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings", and that the 1871 amendment to the Insurrection Act authorizes the use of the armed forces to suppress insurrection attempting to "oppose or obstruct the execution of the laws of the United States or impede the course of justice under those laws."{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=3}}{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=87–88}}{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=167–170}} As it is required by the 12th Amendment and effectuated by the [[Electoral Count Act]] and the [[Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022|Electoral Count Reform Act]] (ECRA),{{sfn|Rybicki|Whitaker|2020|p=1}}<ref name="NPR 12-23-2022">{{cite news |last1=Parks |first1=Miles |date=December 23, 2022 |title=Congress passes election reform designed to ward off another Jan. 6|publisher=NPR|url=https://www.npr.org/2022/12/22/1139951463/electoral-count-act-reform-passes |access-date=July 15, 2023 |archive-date=June 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230630093134/https://www.npr.org/2022/12/22/1139951463/electoral-count-act-reform-passes |url-status=live }}</ref>{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=560}} the CRS and Graber note that the [[United States Electoral College#Joint session of Congress|Electoral College vote count]] arguably qualifies as an execution of the laws of the United States.{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=3}}{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=42–43}}
In a dispute over whether the state government and [[Constitution of Rhode Island|constitution]] installed in [[Rhode Island]] by the [[Dorr Rebellion]] or the state government operating under the [[Rhode Island Royal Charter]] was the legitimate state government under the [[Guarantee Clause]] of the [[Article Four of the United States Constitution#Section 4: Obligations of the United States|Article IV, Section IV]],{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=554}} the Supreme Court held in ''[[Luther v. Borden]]'' (1849) that the controversy was a political question that could only be determined by Congress.<ref>{{cite report|last1=Lampe|first1=Joanna R.|date=June 14, 2022|title=The Political Question Doctrine: Historical Background (Part 2)|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10757|access-date=December 27, 2023|archive-date=March 7, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230307045614/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10757|url-status=live}}</ref>{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|p=91}}<ref>{{ussc|name=Luther v. Borden|volume=48|page=1|year=1849}}</ref> The CRS cites the Supreme Court's ruling in ''Luther v. Borden'' as establishing that the Insurrection Act generally leaves the decision to determine whether a civil disturbance qualifies as an insurrection at the discretion of the President with invocation sufficing for disqualification under Section 3.{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=3}} Baude and Paulsen cite the Supreme Court's ruling in the ''[[Prize Cases]]'' (1863) as stating that "This greatest of civil wars was not gradually developed by popular commotion, tumultuous assemblies, or local unorganized insurrections... [but] sprung forth suddenly ... in the full panoply of ''war''. The President was bound to meet it in the shape it presented itself, without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name".{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|p=84–85}}<ref>{{ussc|name=Prize Cases|volume=67|page=635|pin=668–669|year=1863}}</ref> Conversely, surveying federal and state case law on insurrection prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Graber argues that federal and state courts have never required that prosecutors provide evidence of a presidential proclamation being issued in cases related to an insurrection.{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=40–42}}
The CRS also suggests that presidential invocation of the Insurrection Act might be unnecessary to establish an event as an insurrection because the Militia Clause and [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Section 5: Power of enforcement|Section 5 of the 14th Amendment]] probably also provide Congress with the legislative authority to designate an event as an insurrection for determining disqualification under Section 3.{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=3}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=547; 562}} While the Supreme Court held in ''[[Martin v. Mott]]'' (1827) that "The authority to decide whether the exigencies contemplated" under the Militia Clause and the Militia Act of 1795 "have arisen, is exclusively vested in the President, and his decision is conclusive upon all other persons",<ref>{{ussc|name=Martin v. Mott|volume=25|page=19|year=1827}}</ref> Lynch argues that it is unlikely that Congress or courts would allow for public office disqualification pursuant to Section 3 strictly on a President's judgement of whether an insurrection has occurred due to potential [[abuse of power]].{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=180–181}} Along with the definitions of "insurrection" and "rebellion" in the 1828 and 1864 editions of the ''[[Webster's Dictionary|American Dictionary of the English Language]]'' originally compiled by lexicographer [[Noah Webster]], the 1860 abridgement of ''Webster's Dictionary'' compiled by lexicographer [[Joseph Emerson Worcester]], and the 12th edition of ''[[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]]'' released in 1868,{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=70–72}} Baude and Paulsen cite the ''Prize Cases'' as stating that "Insurrection against a government may or may not culminate in an organized rebellion, but a civil war always begins by insurrection against the lawful authority of the Government," in arguing that "insurrection" and "rebellion" are legally distinct.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|p=64}}<ref>{{ussc|name=Prize Cases|volume=67|page=635|pin=666|year=1863}}</ref>
Along with [[Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address]] and Lincoln's July 4, 1861, message to Congress,{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=75–76}} Baude and Paulsen argue that the text of the Ironclad Oath and Sections 2 and 3 of the [[Confiscation Act of 1862|Second Confiscation Act]] are instructive for understanding the original meaning of "insurrection" and "rebellion" in Section 3.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=79–84}} Adopted by the [[37th United States Congress]] in 1862 for the incoming members of the [[38th United States Congress]], the Ironclad Oath states:
{{blockquote|I, A. B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto. And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.<ref>{{usstat|17|502}}</ref>}}
Also passed in 1862 and 6 years prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Sections 2 and 3 of the Second Confiscation Act state:
{{blockquote|[Section 2]. ... [I]f any person shall hereafter incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States, or the laws thereof, or shall give aid or comfort thereto, or shall engage in, or give aid and comfort to, any such existing rebellion or insurrection, and be convicted thereof, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and by the liberation of all his slaves, if any he have; or by both of said punishments, at the discretion of the court.<br>[Section 3]. ... [E]very person guilty of ... the offences described in this act shall be forever incapable and disqualified to hold any office under the United States.<ref>{{uspl|37|195}}, {{usstat|12|589}}</ref>}}
Baude and Paulsen cite the invocation of the Insurrection Act by [[George Washington]] during the [[Whiskey Rebellion]], by [[John Adams]] during the [[Fries's Rebellion]], by [[Millard Fillmore]] during the [[Christiana Riot]], by [[Abraham Lincoln]] in the [[Presidential proclamation (United States)|presidential proclamation]] calling for [[President Lincoln's 75,000 volunteers|75,000 volunteers]] following the [[Battle of Fort Sumter]], and by [[Ulysses S. Grant]] after the [[Colfax massacre]] in 1873 and the [[Battle of Liberty Place]] in 1874, during the [[Brooks–Baxter War]] in 1874, during the [[Vicksburg massacre]] in 1875, twice in [[South Carolina]] in 1871, and during the [[Hamburg massacre]], the [[Ellenton massacre]], and the other [[South Carolina civil disturbances of 1876]] as examples of such presidential designation of civil disturbances as insurrections or rebellions.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=75–76, 87–93}} With respect to the Christiana Riot, [[Nat Turner's slave rebellion]], [[John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry]], and other riots interfering with enforcement of the [[Fugitive Slave Act of 1850]] in [[Boston]] in 1850 and 1851 and in [[Wisconsin]] in 1859, Baude and Paulsen state "These rebels and insurrectionists were fighting deeply unjust laws, but there is no question that they committed many acts of insurrection nonetheless. Rebellion for a good cause is still rebellion."{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=90–91}} Graber notes in addendum that "Legal authorities from the framing to Reconstruction insisted that insurrection or treason trials do not turn on the justice of any complaint against the laws. ... That the motive is moral rather than pecuniary is one factor that converts a riot into an insurrection."{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=42–43}}
During congressional debate on the 14th Amendment, [[List of United States senators from West Virginia|West Virginia Senator]] [[Peter G. Van Winkle]] stated in reference to Section 3, that "This is to go into our Constitution and to stand to govern future insurrection as well as the present; and I should like to have that point definitely understood",<ref>{{Cite web |date=June 4, 1866 |publisher=Congressional Globe |work=39th United States Congress |title=In Senate: June 4, 1866: Reconstruction |url=https://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/073/0000/00632941.tif |access-date=February 1, 2024 |via=The Library of Congress |page=2941 |language=en }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Portnoy|first1=Steven|date=December 29, 2023|title=What the framers said about the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause: Analysis|publisher=[[ABC News]]|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/framers-14th-amendments-disqualification-clause-analysis/story?id=105996364|access-date=January 2, 2024|archive-date=January 1, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240101184948/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/framers-14th-amendments-disqualification-clause-analysis/story?id=105996364|url-status=live}}</ref>{{sfn|Graber|2023a|p=50}} and Lynch, Vlahoplus, and Graber argue that while early drafts of Section 3 limited its application to the Civil War, the final language was broadened to include insurrection and rebellion retrospectively and prospectively due to concerns about ex-Confederates engaging in insurrection or rebellion postbellum.{{sfn|Lynch|2021|p=168}}{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=13–17}}{{sfn|Vlahoplus|2023|pp=4–6}} Conversely, Lash argues that the evidence from the drafting history of Section 3 on whether the clause was intended to apply prospectively or only to the Civil War is mixed, that Daniel Clark's proposal for Section 3 omitted reference to future rebellions, and that the public understanding of Section 3, as expressed in contemporaneous newspaper coverage and public comments made by members of Congress and state governors during the [[1866 United States elections|1866 midterm elections]], was that Section 3 applied only to the Civil War.{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=30; 37–46}}
As with whether Section 3 applies to the presidential oath of office and the Presidency, Lash concludes that it is unclear whether Section 3 applies prospectively or only to the Civil War while conceding that the clause could be read to imply the former possibility.{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=57–62}} While the CRS, Baude and Paulsen, Lynch, and Magliocca note that Congress would subsequently amend the Enforcement Act of 1870 that provided congressional enforcement for Section 3 with the [[Amnesty Act]] in 1872 and a subsequent amnesty law in 1898 in accordance with the two-thirds majority requirement of Section 3,{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=5}}{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=11–16}}{{sfn|Lynch|2021|p=178}}{{sfn|Magliocca|2021|pp=39–64}} the CRS has also noted that the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals]] held in the Section 3 lawsuit brought against [[List of United States representatives from North Carolina|North Carolina Representative]] [[Madison Cawthorn]] that the Amnesty Act applies only retrospectively and not prospectively in that only acts prior to its enactment qualify for amnesty from Section 3 disqualification and not acts subsequent to its enactment.<ref name="CRS 6-1-2022 p. 3">{{cite report|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10750 |title=The Insurrection Bar to Holding Office: Appeals Court Issues Decision on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment|last1=Lampe |first1=Joanna R. |date=June 1, 2022|publisher=Congressional Research Service |page=3 |access-date=September 24, 2023 |archive-date=June 3, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230603102358/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10750 |url-status=live }}</ref>
Based on the concurrent majorities in favor of the sole article in the second Trump impeachment in the House and the impeachment trial in the Senate, and the passage of the Congressional Gold Medals bill in August 2021, Baude and Paulsen argue that Congress has effectively designated the January 6 Capitol attack as an insurrection,{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=112–116}}<ref name="CNN 8-5-2021" /><ref name="USPL 117-32" /> while Graber argues that the January 6 Capitol attack falls within the meaning of "insurrection" within pre-14th Amendment federal and state case law.{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=42–43}} Baude and Paulsen conclude, "If the public record is accurate, the case is not even close. [Donald Trump] is no longer eligible to the office of [the] Presidency, or any other state or federal office covered by the Constitution."{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=116–122}} Graber argues that if Donald Trump's actions as described in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh central findings of the House Select January 6 Committee final report were done intentionally and knowingly in support of the January 6 Capitol attack, then his actions meet the standard for engaging in an insurrection as established by federal and state case law, and the findings are sufficient to disqualify Trump under Section 3 if those findings are proven in a hearing on the application of Section 3 to his eligibility to serve as President.{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=51–53}}<ref name="House January 6 Committee pp. 4–7" />
=== "[G]iven aid or comfort to ... enemies" ===
{{See also|United States free speech exceptions|Treason laws in the United States}}
Like Baude and Paulsen,{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|p=73}} the CRS notes that the [[Article Three of the United States Constitution#Section 3: Treason|Treason Clause of Article III, Section III]] states "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" and mirrors the language of Section 3 to describe the offenses qualifying for disqualification.{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=3}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=553}} The CRS goes on to cite the Supreme Court's rulings in ''[[Cramer v. United States]]'' (1945) and ''Haupt v. United States'' (1947) in suggesting that simple association with a person is insufficient to qualify as "giving aid or comfort" but that actions that provide even relatively minor material support does qualify.{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=4}}<ref>{{ussc|name=Cramer v. United States|volume=325|page=1|year=1945}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=Haupt v. United States|volume=330|page=631|year=1947}}</ref> Lynch notes that the Court stated in ''Cramer v. United States'' that there is "no evidence whatever that… aid and comfort was designed to encompass a narrower field than that indicated by its accepted and settled meaning" as established by the [[Treason Act 1351]].{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=170–178}}<ref>{{ussc|name=Cramer v. United States|volume=325|page=1|pin=76|year=1945}}</ref> The CRS and Baude and Paulsen cite the ''Prize Cases'' as concluding that citizens of the [[Confederate States of America]], while not foreign, qualified as "enemies" for [[law of war]] purposes,{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=4}} and Baude and Paulsen cite the Court as stating in the ''Prize Cases'' that "It is not the less a civil war, with belligerent parties in hostile array, because it may be called an 'insurrection' by one side, and the insurgents be considered as rebels or traitors."{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|p=85}}<ref>{{ussc|name=Prize Cases|volume=67|page=635|pin=669|year=1863}}</ref>
In ''[[Federalist No. 78]]'', Alexander Hamilton states:
{{blockquote|Th[e] exercise of judicial discretion, in determining between two contradictory laws, is exemplified in a familiar instance. It not uncommonly happens, that there are two statutes existing at one time, clashing in whole or in part with each other, and neither of them containing any repealing clause or expression. In such a case, it is the province of the courts to liquidate and fix their meaning and operation. So far as they can, by any fair construction, be reconciled to each other, reason and law conspire to dictate that this should be done; where this is impracticable, it becomes a matter of necessity to give effect to one, in exclusion of the other. The rule which has obtained in the courts for determining their relative validity is, that the last in order of time shall be preferred to the first. But this is a mere rule of construction, not derived from any positive law, but from the nature and reason of the thing. It is a rule not enjoined upon the courts by legislative provision, but adopted by themselves, as consonant to truth and propriety, for the direction of their conduct as interpreters of the law. They thought it reasonable, that between the interfering acts of an EQUAL authority, that which was the last indication of its will should have the preference.{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=467}}<ref>{{cite web |title=The Avalon Project – Federalist No 78|url=https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp |access-date=December 27, 2023 |website=[[Avalon Project]] |publisher=[[Yale Law School]] |place=[[New Haven, Connecticut|New Haven, CT]] |archive-date=December 25, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231225111129/https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp |url-status=live }}</ref>}}
Citing Hamilton in ''Federalist No. 78'' and the Supreme Court's rulings in ''[[Chisholm v. Georgia]]'' (1793) and ''[[Hollingsworth v. Virginia]]'' (1798) before and after the ratification of the [[Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution|11th Amendment]],<ref>{{ussc|name=Chisholm v. Georgia|volume=2|page=419|year=1793}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=Hollingsworth v. Virginia|volume=3|page=378|year=1798}}</ref>{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=560}} Baude and Paulsen argue that Section 3 supersedes or qualifies any prior constitutional provisions with which it could be in conflict and cite the [[Freedom of speech in the United States|Freedom of Speech Clause]] of the 1st Amendment specifically.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=49–61}} Baude and Paulsen also cite the text of the Ironclad Oath and the Second Confiscation Act to argue that the use of "enemies" in Section 3 refers to "enemies foreign and domestic" and that "giving aid or comfort" includes providing indirect material assistance.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=67–68}} The CRS, Baude and Paulsen, Graber, and Lynch cite the exclusion of [[John Y. Brown (politician, born 1835)|John Y. Brown]] and [[John Duncan Young]] of Kentucky by the House of Representatives in [[1866–67 United States House of Representatives elections|1867]] for oral or print speech that the House determined qualified for disqualification,{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=4}}{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=94–95}}{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=197–200}}{{sfn|Graber|2023a|p=49}} while Baude and Paulsen also cite the [[open letter]] written by Abraham Lincoln to [[List of United States representatives from New York|New York Representative]] [[Erastus Corning]] on June 12, 1863, in support of the military arrest of former [[List of United States representatives from Ohio|Ohio Representative]] [[Clement Vallandigham]] in support of their argument that Section 3 qualifies the Freedom of Speech Clause.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=76–79}} Baude and Paulsen, Graber, and Lynch cite the exclusion of former [[United States Secretary of the Treasury|Secretary of the Treasury]] [[Philip Francis Thomas]] from the Senate in [[1866–67 United States Senate elections|1867]] as an example of disqualification for "giving aid or comfort to ... enemies".{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=96–97}}{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=47–48}}{{sfn|Lynch|2021|p=201}}
The CRS, Baude and Paulsen, Graber, and Lynch also note the [[List of United States representatives expelled, censured, or reprimanded|disqualification and removal]] of [[List of United States representatives from Wisconsin|Wisconsin Representative]] [[Victor L. Berger]] from the House of Representatives in 1919 under Section 3 after being convicted of treason under the [[Espionage Act of 1917]].{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=2}}{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=60–61}}{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=16; 50}}{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=210–213}} Berger's conviction was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court in ''[[Berger v. United States]]'' (1921) and Berger was reelected and seated from 1923 to 1929.<ref>{{ussc|name=Berger v. United States|volume=255|page=22|year=1921}}</ref>{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=60–61}}{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=213–214}} Graber notes further that Berger had been charged under the Espionage Act because of his opposition to [[American entry into World War I|U.S. entry into World War I]] and had urged resistance to [[Conscription in the United States|conscription]],{{sfn|Graber|2023a|p=50}} and that in rejecting Berger's claim that Section 3 applied only to ex-Confederates, a report issued by the House of Representatives stated, "It is perfectly true that the entire [14th Amendment] was the child of the Civil War… [but it] is equally true, however, that its provisions are for all time… It is inconceivable that the House of Representatives, which without such an express provision in the Constitution repeatedly asserted its right to exclude Members-elect for disloyalty, should ignore this plain prohibition which has been contained in the fundamental law of the Nation for more than half a century."{{sfn|Graber|2023a|p=16}}{{efn|Members of the Senate and the House expelled for supporting Confederacy included:
* [[List of United States senators from Arkansas|Arkansas Senators]] [[William K. Sebastian]] and [[Charles B. Mitchel]];
* [[List of United States senators from Indiana|Indiana Senator]] [[Jesse D. Bright]];
* Kentucky Senator [[John C. Breckinridge]];
* [[List of United States representatives from Kentucky|Kentucky Representative]] [[Henry Cornelius Burnett]];
* Missouri Senators [[Trusten Polk]] and [[Waldo P. Johnson]];
* [[List of United States representatives from Missouri|Missouri Representatives]] [[John Bullock Clark]] and [[John William Reid]];
* [[List of United States senators from North Carolina|North Carolina Senators]] [[Thomas L. Clingman]] and [[Thomas Bragg]];
* [[List of United States senators from South Carolina|South Carolina Senator]] [[James Chesnut Jr.]];
* Tennessee Senator [[Alfred O. P. Nicholson]];
* [[List of United States senators from Texas|Texas Senators]] [[John Hemphill (senator)|John Hemphill]] and [[Louis Wigfall]];
* Virginia Senators [[James M. Mason]] and [[Robert M. T. Hunter]].}}
Blackman and Tillman argue that since engaging in insurrection or rebellion and giving aid or comfort to enemies are textually distinct in Section 3, that Baude and Paulsen conflate engaging in insurrection or rebellion with giving aid or comfort to enemies and in effect create "giving aid or comfort to insurrection" as a criminal offense which does not appear in the text of Section 3.{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2023|pp=155–184}} Conversely, the CRS states that while a criminal conviction for insurrection or treason under Section 2383 or 2381, respectively, of Title 18 of the [[United States Code]] would presumably be [[Necessity and sufficiency|sufficient]] for determining whether specific individuals are disqualified under Section 3,{{efn|Current text of 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection:{{blockquote|"''Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.''"<ref name="USC Title 18 Section 2383">{{usc|18|2383}}</ref>}}}}<ref name="auto">{{usc|18|2381}}</ref> the definitions of "insurrection" and "rebellion" for the purpose of Section 3 disqualification would not necessarily be confined by statute.{{sfn|Elsea|2022|pp=3–4}} Similarly, Lynch argues that conviction under Section 2383 as a necessary condition for Section 3 disqualification is not a model standard because there are no apparent cases of a defendant ever being convicted under Section 2383, and because the statute also does not include federally-recognized rebellions or insurrections against state governments.{{sfn|Lynch|2021|p=181}} Section 2383 is the codified version of Sections 2 and 3 of the Second Confiscation Act that was retained in the [[Revised Statutes of the United States]] in 1874,<ref>{{usstat|18|1036}}</ref> in a subsequent codification of federal penal statutes in 1909,<ref>{{usstat|35|1088}}</ref> and ultimately in the United States Code in 1948,<ref>{{usstat|62|808}}, {{usc|18|2383}}; Second Confiscation Act included in the ''[[United States Statutes at Large]]'' at {{usstat|12|589}}</ref> but it applies disqualification only from "offices under the United States" (i.e. federal offices) while Section 3 also applies disqualification from state offices.<ref name="USC Title 18 Section 2383" />{{efn|Section 3 states "No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State".{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=562}}}}
Likewise, Section 2381 is the codified version of Sections 1 and 3 of the Second Confiscation Act together with Section 1 of the [[Crimes Act of 1790]] that was ultimately retained through the same codifications, and it also applies disqualification only from federal offices and not from state offices.<ref>Crimes Act of 1790, {{usstat|1|112}}; Second Confiscation Act, {{usstat|12|589}}; Revised Statutes codification, {{usstat|18|1036}}; 1909 federal penal statutes codification, {{usstat|35|1088}}; U.S. Code codification, {{usstat|62|807}}</ref>{{efn|Current text of 18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason:{{blockquote|"''Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.<ref name="auto"/>}}}} In ''[[Ex parte Bollman]]'' (1807), the Supreme Court stated that "if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors."<ref>{{ussc|name=Ex parte Bollman|volume=8|page=75|pin=126|year=1807}}</ref> Citing ''Ex parte Bollman'', ''United States v. Burr'', the ''Prize Cases'',<ref>{{ussc|name=Prize Cases|volume=67|page=635|pin=673|year=1863}}</ref> ''United States v. Vigol'' (1795),<ref>{{ussc|name=United States v. Vigol|volume=2|page=346|year=1795}}</ref> ''United States v. Mitchell I'' (1795),<ref>{{ussc|name=United States v. Mitchell I|volume=2|page=348|year=1795}}</ref> and ''[[Ex parte Vallandigham]]'' (1864),<ref>{{ussc|name=Ex parte Vallandigham|volume=68|page=24|year=1864}}</ref> and surveying federal and state case law on insurrection and treason prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Graber argues that the original public meaning of "insurrection" and "treason" were understood to be any assemblage resisting a federal law by force for a public purpose,{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=24–40}} and that "engaging" in an insurrection was understood to broadly include performing any role in an attempt to obstruct the execution of a federal law.{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=44–51}} In ''[[Brandenburg v. Ohio]]'' (1969), the Supreme Court established a two-part test for speech qualifying as incitement and without protection by the 1st Amendment if that speech is:
# "directed to inciting or producing [[imminent lawless action]]"; and
# "likely to incite or produce such action".<ref>{{ussc|name=Brandenburg v. Ohio|volume=395|page=444|year=1969}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Brandenburg test – Wex – US Law|website=Legal Information Institute|publisher=Cornell Law School|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test|access-date=January 9, 2024|archive-date=July 11, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220711140412/https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite report|last=Killion|first=Victoria L.|date=January 16, 2019|title=The First Amendment: Categories of Speech|publisher=Congressional Research Service|page=2|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11072|access-date=January 9, 2024|archive-date=January 9, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240109221613/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11072|url-status=live}}</ref>
In November 2022, the [[New Mexico Supreme Court]] upheld the removal and lifetime disqualification from public office of [[Otero County, New Mexico|Otero County]] [[County commission|Board Commissioner]] [[Couy Griffin]] under Section 3 by [[Courts of New Mexico|New Mexico District Court]] Judge Francis J. Mathew the previous September after District of Columbia U.S. District Court Judge [[Trevor N. McFadden]] ruled that Griffin was guilty of [[Trespass|trespassing]] during the January 6 Capitol attack in March 2022.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Segarra|first1=Curtis|date=November 15, 2022|title=End of the road? Couy Griffin's appeal dismissed by NM Supreme Court|publisher=[[KRQE]]|url=https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/end-of-the-road-couy-griffins-appeal-dismissed-by-nm-supreme-court/|access-date=December 23, 2023|archive-date=December 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231230182106/https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/end-of-the-road-couy-griffins-appeal-dismissed-by-nm-supreme-court/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Lybrand |first1=Holmes |first2=Hannah |last2=Rabinowitz|first3=Katelyn|last3=Polantz|date=March 22, 2022 |title=Judge finds January 6 defendant guilty of trespassing on Capitol grounds|url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/22/politics/couy-griffin-verdict-january-6-trial/index.html |access-date=July 8, 2022|publisher=CNN |archive-date=June 30, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220630062502/https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/22/politics/couy-griffin-verdict-january-6-trial/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/06/politics/couy-griffin-new-mexico-january-6/index.html |title=New Mexico county commissioner removed from elected office for role in US Capitol riot|first1=Hannah|last1=Rabinowitz|first2=Holmes|last2=Lybrand|first3=Scott|last3=Bronstein |publisher=CNN |date=September 6, 2022 |access-date=December 27, 2023 |archive-date=September 25, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220925223950/https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/06/politics/couy-griffin-new-mexico-january-6/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref>{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=2}} The New Mexico Supreme Court reaffirmed its decision in February 2023.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Upchurch |first1=Marilyn |title=New Mexico Supreme Court maintains Couy Griffin office removal|url=https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/new-mexico-supreme-court-maintains-couy-griffin-office-removal/ |access-date=April 14, 2023 |publisher=KRQE |date=February 18, 2023 |archive-date=April 14, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230414204101/https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/new-mexico-supreme-court-maintains-couy-griffin-office-removal/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Griffin's appeal in March 2024.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lee |first=Morgan |last2=Riccardi |first2=Nicholas |last3=Sherman |first3=Mark |date=2024-03-18 |title=Supreme Court Rejects Appeal By Former Official Banned For Jan. 6 Insurrection |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-jan-6-official_n_65f84320e4b030e8357ac88e |access-date=2024-03-18 |website=HuffPost |language=en}}</ref>
As of December 2022, about [[Criminal proceedings in the January 6 United States Capitol attack|290 out of over 910 defendants associated with the January 6 Capitol attack]] had been charged with obstructing an official proceeding, with over 70 convicted.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Parloff |first1=Roger |date=December 8, 2022 |title=A Crucial Appeal for Capitol Riot Prosecutions: D.C. Circuit to Hear Arguments Challenging the Felony Charge Used in 290 Cases|url=https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/crucial-appeal-capitol-riot-prosecutions-dc-circuit-hear-arguments-challenging-felony-charge-used |access-date=January 26, 2023|website=[[Lawfare (website)|Lawfare]]|publisher=Brookings Institution/Lawfare Institute |language=en}}</ref> In December 2023, the Supreme Court granted a writ of ''certiorari'' in ''[[Fischer v. United States]]'' (2024) following the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|U.S. District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals]] panel ruling (with [[Florence Y. Pan]], [[Justin R. Walker]], and [[Gregory G. Katsas]] presiding) that reversed the ruling of District of Columbia U.S. District Court Judge [[Carl J. Nichols]] that obstructing an official proceeding is limited to documents tampering.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Sherman |first1=Mark |date=December 13, 2023 |title=Supreme Court will hear a case that could undo Capitol riot charge against hundreds, including Trump|url=https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab |access-date=December 13, 2023|publisher=Associated Press |language=en |archive-date=December 13, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231213144703/https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Hsu |first1=Spencer S. |last2=Jackman |first2=Tom |last3=Weiner |first3=Rachel |date=March 8, 2022 |title=U.S. judge dismisses lead federal charge against Jan. 6 Capitol riot defendant |newspaper=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/03/08/judge-tosses-jan-6-obstruction-charge/ |access-date=April 7, 2023 |archive-date=March 31, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230331085116/https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/03/08/judge-tosses-jan-6-obstruction-charge/ |url-status=live }}</ref>{{sfn|Berris|2023|pp=2–3}}<ref>{{cite report|last1=Doyle|first1=Charles|date=November 5, 2010|title=Obstruction of Congress: A Brief Overview of Federal Law Relating to Interference with Congressional Activities|publisher=Congressional Research Service|pages=15–18|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL34304|access-date=December 27, 2023|archive-date=December 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231230182129/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL34304|url-status=live}}</ref>
=== Enforcement of Section 3 ===
==== Self-executing or congressional enforcement ====
{{see also|United States presidential eligibility legislation|Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation}}
In its September 2022 report on Section 3, the CRS states that it is unclear whether Section 3 is "self-executing", that Section 3 does not establish a procedure for determining whether specific persons are disqualified under its terms, and that Congress has not passed legislation for creating such a procedure.{{sfn|Elsea|2022|pp=3–4}} The [[Supremacy Clause]] of Article VI states that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=555}} Citing the Supremacy Clause, Baude and Paulsen argue that Section 3 is "legally self-executing" in that it does not require additional legislation to effectuate it and make it legally operative.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=17–35}} In arguing its terms are legally self-executing, Baude and Paulsen compare the text of Section 3 to the text of the [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 2: Qualifications of Members|House Qualifications Clause of Article I, Section II]],{{efn|Under Article I, Section II, "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=543}}}} the [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 3: Qualifications of senators|Senate Qualifications Clause of Article I, Section III]],{{efn|Under Article I, Section III, "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=544}}}} and the [[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 5: Qualifications for office|Presidential Qualifications Clause of Article II, Section I]],{{efn|Under Article II, Section I, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=550–551}}}} in noting that none of the clauses include a [[Enumerated powers (United States)|delegation of power]] to any organ of the government for their enforcement.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=17–18}} The [[Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution|22nd Amendment]] also does not delegate power to any organ of the government for its [[Congressional power of enforcement|enforcement]].{{efn|The 22nd Amendment states, "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=565–566}}
In contrast, Baude and Paulsen note that in comparison to the language of Section 3, the Impeachment Power Clause of Article I, Section II,{{efn|Under Article I, Section II, "The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=543}}}} the [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 6: Trial of impeachment|Impeachment Trial Clause of Article I, Section III]],{{efn|Under Article I, Section III, "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=544}}}} the Impeachment Disqualification Clause of Article I, Section III,{{efn|Under Article I, Section III, "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=544}}}} the Impeachment Clause of Article II, Section IV,{{efn|Under Article II, Section IV, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=552}}}} and the Treason Clause of Article III, Section III,{{efn|Under the Treason Clause of Article III, Section III:{{blockquote|Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.<br><br>The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=553}}}}}} define their offenses or specify the organs of the government responsible for their enforcement, while Section 3 neither defines its offenses nor specifies which organs of the government must enforce it but provides disqualification to specific persons itself.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=20–21}} While Baude and Paulsen acknowledge the ruling in ''Griffin's Case'' (1869) presided over by Chief Justice [[Salmon P. Chase]] as the Circuit Justice of Virginia where Chase ruled that Section 3 was not self-executing, Baude and Paulsen argue that it was wrongly decided.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=35–49}} In ''Griffin's Case'', a black man named Caesar Griffin was tried and convicted in a case presided over by [[Hugh White Sheffey]], whom Griffin's attorney argued was disqualified from serving as a state judge under Section 3 as Sheffey had served as the [[List of speakers of the Virginia House of Delegates|Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates]] under the Confederacy.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=35–36}} Blackman and Tillman dispute Baude and Paulsen's interpretation of ''Griffin's Case'', arguing that they apply frameworks of judicial interpretation developed decades after the case to reject it and effectively misconstrue the decision.{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2023|pp=53–133}}
Blackman and Tillman argue further that the second treason indictment of Jefferson Davis (which was also presided over by Chase as Circuit Justice of Virginia) is not in tension with ''Griffin's Case'' and conclude that the decision in the cases when taken together lead to the conclusion that Section 3 is not self-executing.{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2023|pp=133–155}} Conversely, Gerard Magliocca argues that the two decisions are nearly impossible to reconcile since in the case of Jefferson Davis, which occurred months before ''Griffin's Case'', Chase had concluded that Section 3 was self-executing.{{sfn|Magliocca|2021|pp=20–21}} Nearly a month after the surrender of the [[Army of Northern Virginia]] by [[General in Chief of the Armies of the Confederate States|Confederate General-in-Chief]] [[Robert E. Lee]] following the [[Battle of Appomattox Court House]], Davis was captured in [[Irwinville, Georgia]] on May 10, 1865, and imprisoned at [[Fort Monroe]] in [[Virginia]], but would be not indicted for treason until May 1866 by [[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia#United States Attorneys|Eastern Virginia U.S. Attorney]] Lucius H. Chandler.{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=20–21; 164}} In January 1866, Attorney General [[James Speed]] issued an official legal opinion at the request of Congress that concluded that Davis could only be tried for treason in a civil trial rather than a military tribunal and, in accordance with Article III, Section II, only in [[Virginia in the American Civil War|Virginia where Davis had led the Confederacy in the Civil War]] since the Confederate capitol was located in [[Richmond, Virginia|Richmond]].{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=137–152}}{{efn|Article III, Section II requires that "Trial of all Crimes... shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=553}}}}
However, the prosecution was unwilling to try Davis without the presence of Chase as Chief Justice, but Chase declared that he was unwilling to preside over the case because, despite President Andrew Johnson [[Conclusion of the American Civil War#Proclamations|issuing two presidential proclamations in 1866 declaring that the organized resistance to federal authority had ceased]], Virginia remained under [[Martial law in the United States|martial law]] at the time as an [[Reconstruction Acts|unreconstructed state]] and he did not wish to make a decision that could be overruled by the military.{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=164–171; 195–198}} Congress had also passed the [[Judicial Circuits Act]] which reduced the total number of federal judicial circuits and altered their geographical boundaries including Chase's circuit, and because the law did not specify how the Supreme Court justices would subsequently be assigned, Chase argued that he and the other justices should refuse to carry out circuit duty until Congress amended the law to specify assignments.{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=198–199}} In response, Johnson directed Attorney General Henry Stanbery in October 1866 to review what actions Johnson could take to resolve the jurisdiction issue, but Stanbery concluded that the Supreme Court itself could assign the circuits and that Chase was citing technical issues as excuses to not preside over the trial.{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=199–200}} After Congress passed an amendment to the Judicial Circuits Act in March 1867 that ordered the Supreme Court to make the assignments, Chase cited a lack of preparation on the part of the prosecution and continuances requested by the government for his not presiding over the trial, as well as his workload as Chief Justice and concerns about his personal safety in Virginia (despite his presiding over the circuit court in North Carolina during the same time period).{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=200–201}}
Conversely, as the indictment was receiving extensive newspaper coverage throughout the country at the time,{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=153–164; 308–309}} multiple Johnson administration officials, former [[United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York|Southern New York U.S. Attorney]] [[Charles O'Conor (American politician)|Charles O'Conor]] (who served as the lead defense counsel for Davis), and historians have suggested that Chase had presidential ambitions that Chase did not want to risk by presiding over the case.{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=193–194; 201}} Chase's refusal to preside effectively led to the 1866 indictment being [[Motion to quash|quashed]].{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=164–171}} Davis remained imprisoned at Fort Monroe until he was released on bail in May 1867, and was relinquished by the military commander at Fort Monroe into civil custody under a writ of ''[[habeas corpus]]''.{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|p=280}} In November 1867, a grand jury heard testimony against Davis for a second treason indictment, and the grand jury issued the second indictment in March 1868.{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=266–270}} After refusing to consult with Johnson on the indictment and as he sought the presidential nomination at the [[1868 Democratic National Convention]],{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=192–195; 293}} Chase shared his view on Section 3 with Davis' attorneys privately that the clause was self-executing.{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=204; 294–296}} In November 1868, Davis' attorneys filed a [[Motion (legal)#To dismiss|motion to dismiss]] the indictment on the basis that Section 3 was self-executing.{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|p=296}} As Davis had served as a Representative and [[List of United States senators from Mississippi|Senator from Mississippi]] and [[United States Secretary of War|U.S. Secretary of War]] during the [[Presidency of Franklin Pierce|Franklin Pierce administration]] before serving as the president of the Confederate States, his attorneys argued that Section 3 precluded the treason indictment and would violate the principle of [[double jeopardy]] (making the indictment unconstitutional), while the prosecution argued that Section 3 did not provide a criminal punishment and was not applicable in the case.{{sfn|Magliocca|2021|pp=21–24}}{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=296–299}}
After Chase and [[List of former United States district courts#Virginia|Virginia U.S. District Court]] Judge [[John Curtiss Underwood]] split on the motion to dismiss (with Chase voting in favor of the motion and Underwood voting to sustain the indictment), the case was granted a writ of ''certiorari'' by the Supreme Court but was ultimately rendered moot when Johnson granted [[pardons for ex-Confederates]] including Davis in December 1868, and the prosecution formally withdrew the indictment in the early months of the next year.{{sfn|Magliocca|2021|p=24}}{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=299–300}} While initially wanting Davis to be tried for treason since there was no evidence to implicate Davis in the [[assassination of Abraham Lincoln]] or the treatment of [[Union Army]] soldiers as [[Prisoner of war|prisoners of war]] at [[Andersonville Prison]] in Georgia,{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=32–38}} Johnson and [[Presidency of Andrew Johnson#Administration|his Cabinet]] decided that granting Davis a pardon was the best course of action due to their surprise that the Supreme Court issued the writ of ''certiorari'' and at Chase's sympathy towards the defense counsel's motion,{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|p=299}} as well as the concern that an acquittal of Davis would constitutionally validate secession.{{sfn|Nicoletti|2017|pp=6–7; 266–276}} Despite the pardon, Congress would not remove the Section 3 disqualification from Davis until 1978 when it also restored his citizenship posthumously.{{sfn|Magliocca|2021|pp=2; 64–68}}{{sfn|Vlahoplus|2023|p=10}} Under [[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 1: Command of military; Opinions of cabinet secretaries; Pardons|Article II, Section II]], "The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States".{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=551}}
While the Supreme Court had held in ''[[Ex parte Garland]]'' (1867) that a full [[Federal pardons in the United States|presidential pardon]] "releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt... as if [the offender] had never committed the offence... [and if] granted before conviction... prevents any of the penalties and disabilities... upon conviction from attaching",<ref>{{ussc|name=Ex parte Garland|volume=71|page=333|pin=380–381|year=1867}}</ref> the Supreme Court subsequently held in ''[[Burdick v. United States]]'' (1915) that a pardon "carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it."<ref>{{ussc|name=Burdick v. United States|volume=236|page=79|pin=94|year=1915}}</ref><ref>{{cite report|last1=Foster|first1=Michael A.|date=January 14, 2020|title=Presidential Pardons: Overview and Selected Legal Issues|publisher=Congressional Research Service|pages=11–13|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46179|access-date=January 3, 2024|archive-date=October 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231030111631/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46179|url-status=live}}</ref> Chase and Underwood would likewise differ over whether Section 3 was self-executing in ''Griffin's Case'', with Chase arguing that Section 3 was not and Underwood arguing that Section 3 was.{{sfn|Magliocca|2021|pp=24–29}} Lynch and Graber note that Hugh White Sheffey's attorney had conceded Section 3 disqualification ''[[arguendo]]'', but rejected an ''ex proprio vigore'' interpretation of Section 3 (i.e. disqualification without [[due process]]) with which Chase agreed.{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=203–206}}{{sfn|Graber|2023a|p=11}} During congressional debate on Section 3, Pennsylvania Representative Thaddeus Stevens stated that "[I]f this amendment prevails, you must legislate to carry out many parts of it. ... It will not execute itself, but as soon as it becomes a law, Congress at the next session will legislate to carry it out both in reference to the presidential and all other elections as we have a right to do."<ref>{{Cite web |date=May 10, 1866 |publisher=Congressional Globe |work=39th United States Congress |title=In Senate: May 10, 1866: Reconstruction |url= https://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/072/0600/06262544.tif|access-date=February 7, 2024 |via=The Library of Congress |page= 2544 |language=en }}</ref>{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=27–28}} In his remarks in the final house debate, Stevens reiterated, "I see no hope of safety [except] in the prescription of proper enabling acts".<ref name="Congressional Globe 6-13-1866" />{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=38–39}}
Citing Stevens and remarks made by [[List of United States senators from Illinois|Illinois Senator]] [[Lyman Trumbull]] in congressional debate on the Enforcement Act of 1870, Lash argues that many members of Congress during the drafting history of Section 3 believed that the clause required enabling legislation.{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=50–51; 55–56}} Lash also cites the Military Reconstruction Acts as evidence of how Section 3 required congressional enforcement legislation for the Electoral College.{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=54–55}} Also citing ''Griffin's Case'',{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=55–56}} Lash concludes, as with whether Section 3 applies to the presidential oath of office and to holding the Presidency and post-Civil War insurrections and rebellions, that it is unclear whether Section 3 is self-executing considering that it was interpreted both ways during its drafting, ratification, and contemporaneous effectuation.{{sfn|Lash|2023|pp=57–62}} Magliocca argues that Chase's argument against Section 3 being self-executing in ''Griffin's Case'' is not persuasive primarily due to Chase's reversal between the two cases and because there is no evidence that when Congress drafted the 14th Amendment that Congress viewed Section 3 as requiring enforcement legislation, and Magliocca argues further that Underwood's positions in the two cases was more consistent and faithful to the text.{{sfn|Magliocca|2021|pp=29–34}} Likewise, Graber argues that there is no evidence from congressional debate during the drafting of the 14th Amendment that members of Congress thought that Section 3 was not self-executing, and Graber goes on to state that state governments enacted their own enforcement legislation for Section 3 and held persons disqualified under its terms in the absence of federal enforcement legislation and that Congress did nothing to reverse the decisions.{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=7–12}}
Graber states that Chase's opinion in ''Griffin's Case'' is the only counterexample following the ratification of the 14th Amendment of a court or legislative proceeding concluding that Section 3 was not self-executing, and that since state government Section 3 disqualification proceedings continued without congressional enforcement legislation after ''Griffin's Case'' was decided, Graber argues that ''Griffin's Case'' is not persuasive evidence against the original public understanding of Section 3 as being self-executing and agrees with Magliocca that Chase's reversal between the Jefferson Davis treason indictment and ''Griffin's Case'' casts doubt on the validity of Chase's arguments in the two cases.{{sfn|Graber|2023a|p=11}} While noting the Court's opinions in ''Durousseau v. United States'' (1810) and ''[[Ex parte McCardle]]'' (1869),<ref>{{ussc|name=Durousseau v. United States|volume=10|page=307|year=1810}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=Ex parte McCardle|volume=74|page=506|year=1869}}</ref>{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2023|pp=20–22}} Blackman and Tillman argue that, as an analogue to Section 3, the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction under the Appellate Jurisdiction Clause is not clearly self-executing citing ''Wiscart v. D'Auchy'' (1796),<ref>{{ussc|name=Wiscart v. D'Auchy|volume=3|page=321|year=1796}}</ref> ''[[Turner v. Bank of North America]]'' (1799),<ref>{{ussc|name=Turner v. Bank of North America|volume=4|page=8|year=1799}}</ref> ''Barry v. Mercein'' (1847),<ref>{{ussc|name=Barry v. Mercein|volume=46|page=103|year=1847}}</ref> ''Daniels v. Railroad Company'' (1865),<ref>{{ussc|name=Daniels v. Railroad Co.|volume=70|page=250|year=1865}}</ref> and ''The Francis Wright'' (1881);<ref>{{ussc|name=The Francis Wright|volume=105|page=381|year=1881}}</ref> and, citing the CRS as suggesting that the prevailing opinion among legal scholars today is that the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction is not self-executing, Blackman and Tillman also claim that the issue of whether or not it is remains a matter of debate.{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2023|pp=22–26}}
Noting that, despite the age requirements for membership in Article I, the House of Representatives chose to seat [[List of United States representatives from Tennessee|Tennessee Representative]] [[William C. C. Claiborne]] for the [[5th United States Congress]], that the Senate chose to seat [[List of United States senators from Kentucky|Kentucky Senator]] [[Henry Clay]] for the [[9th United States Congress]], [[List of United States senators from Virginia|Virginia Senator]] [[Armistead Thomson Mason]] for the [[14th United States Congress]], and Tennessee Senator [[John Eaton (politician)|John Eaton]] for the [[15th United States Congress]], and that the Senate dismissed a complaint brought by incumbent West Virginia Senator [[Henry D. Hatfield]] following the [[1934 United States Senate elections|1934 Senate elections]] to not seat [[Rush Holt Sr.]] for the [[74th United States Congress]], Blackman and Tillman argue that the Article I membership qualifications have been enforced by Congress in a discretionary manner rather than a self-executing one.{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2023|pp=27–31}} Blackman and Tillman also note that the House of Representatives had seated Victor L. Berger for the [[66th United States Congress]] despite his conviction under the Espionage Act in February 1919 and did not remove him from his seat under Section 3 until the following November,{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2023|pp=31–34}} and that Clay, Mason, and Eaton were chosen by state legislatures—whose members were bound by the Oath or Affirmation Clause and the Supremacy Clause—in indirect elections prior to the ratification of the 17th Amendment as additional examples that demonstrate that Article I qualifications are enforced by discretion and are not self-executing.{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2023|pp=34–36}}
Similarly, historian [[David T. Beito]] has noted that while [[Eugene V. Debs]] had served as a member of the [[Indiana House of Representatives]] and was later convicted under the [[Sedition Act of 1918]], Debs still appeared on the ballot in at least 40 states as the [[Socialist Party of America|Socialist Party]] presidential nominee in the [[1920 United States presidential election|1920 presidential election]].<ref>{{Cite web|last1=Beito|first1=David T.|date=September 1, 2023|title=The Fourteenth Amendment Case Against Trump Disregards Both History and Precedent|publisher=[[Independent Institute]]|url=https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14659|access-date=December 28, 2023|archive-date=December 21, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231221231049/https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14659|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Southwick">{{cite book|last1=Southwick|first1=Leslie H.|author-link=Leslie H. Southwick|year=2008|orig-year=1998|title=Presidential Also-Rans and Running Mates, 1788 through 1996: Volume 2|place=[[Jefferson, North Carolina|Jefferson, NC]]|publisher=[[McFarland & Company]]|edition=2nd|pages=451–452; 493–494|isbn=978-0786438914}}</ref> Also in contrast to Berger, Debs' conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court in ''[[Debs v. United States]]'' (1919).<ref>{{ussc|name=Debs v. United States|volume=249|page=211|year=1919}}</ref><ref name="Southwick" /> Conversely, Baude and Paulsen argue that the problem of enforcement while real is a [[Formal fallacy|non-sequitur]] from the question of whether Section 3 is self-executing because "...the meaning of the Constitution comes first. Officials must enforce the Constitution because it is law; it is wrong to think that it only becomes law if they decide to enforce it."{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|p=22}} Blackman and Tillman cite the ''[[Slaughter-House Cases]]'' (1873),<ref>{{ussc|name=Slaughter-House Cases|volume=83|page=36|year=1873}}</ref> ''[[Bradwell v. Illinois]]'' (1873),<ref>{{ussc|name=Bradwell v. Illinois|volume=83|page=130|year=1873}}</ref> ''[[United States v. Cruikshank]]'' (1876),<ref>{{ussc|name=United States v. Cruikshank|volume=92|page=542|year=1876}}</ref> ''[[Plessy v. Ferguson]]'' (1896),<ref>{{ussc|name=Plessy v. Ferguson|volume=163|page=537|year=1896}}</ref> ''[[Ex parte Young]]'' (1908),<ref>{{ussc|name=Ex parte Young|volume=209|page=123|year=1908}}</ref> and ''[[Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents]]'' (1971) in arguing that [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Section 1: Citizenship and civil rights|Section 1 of the 14th Amendment]] is only self-executing where there is federal enforcement legislation for an applicant seeking affirmative relief in a [[cause of action]] under the section or as a defense in litigation or prosecution against an enforcement action,<ref>{{ussc|name=Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents|volume=403|page=388|year=1971}}</ref> and Blackman and Tillman argue that Baude and Paulsen fail to account for this dichotomy in arguing that Section 1 is self-executing.{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2023|pp=38–53}}{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|p=19}}
Blackman and Tillman also claim that the plaintiffs in ''[[Shelley v. Kraemer]]'' (1948),<ref>{{ussc|name=Shelley v. Kraemer|volume=334|page=1|year=1948}}</ref> ''[[Brown v. Board of Education]]'' (1954),<ref name="Brown v. Board of Education">{{ussc|name=Brown v. Board of Education|volume=347|page=483|year=1954}}</ref> ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' (1973),<ref name="Roe v. Wade">{{ussc|name=Roe v. Wade|volume=410|page=113|year=1973}}</ref> and ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'' (2015) invoked the [[Second Enforcement Act|Second Enforcement Act of 1871]] as codified in Section 1983 of [[Title 42 of the United States Code]] for relief as examples.<ref name="Obergefell v. Hodges">{{ussc|name=Obergefell v. Hodges|volume=576|page=644|year=2015}}</ref>{{sfn|Blackman|Tillman|2023|pp=39; 46}}<ref>{{usc|42|1983}}, {{usstat|16|433}}</ref>{{efn|However, the text of ''Brown v. Board of Education'', ''Roe v. Wade'', and ''Obergefell v. Hodges'' make no reference to Section 1983 or the Second Enforcement Act,<ref name="Brown v. Board of Education" /><ref name="Roe v. Wade" /><ref name="Obergefell v. Hodges" /> and ''Shelley v. Kraemer'' refers only to the Enforcement Act of 1870 in a footnote that explains that Section 18 of the 1870 law reenacted the [[Civil Rights Act of 1866]].<ref>{{ussc|name=Shelley v. Kraemer|volume=334|page=1|pin=11|year=1948}}</ref><ref>{{usstat|16|140}}</ref>}} Conversely, Magliocca agrees with Baude and Paulsen that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is self-executing,{{sfn|Magliocca|2021|p=30}} and Graber argues that there is no evidence from congressional debate during the drafting of the 14th Amendment that members of Congress thought that any provision of the 14th Amendment was not self-executing.{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=7–12}} Noting that the House chose to seat Berger from 1923 until 1929 without an amnesty resolution passed with a two-thirds majority as required by Section 3 and citing ''Ex parte Virginia'' (1880) and ''[[City of Boerne v. Flores]]'' (1997),{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=213–214}}<ref>{{ussc|name=Ex parte Virginia|volume=100|page=339|pin=345|year=1880}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=City of Boerne v. Flores|volume=521|page=507|year=1997}}</ref> Lynch argues that subsequent to ''Griffin's Case'' that the 14th Amendment as a whole was reconceptualized as being primarily judicially enforceable rather than congressionally enforceable.{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=206–207}} In the ''[[Civil Rights Cases]]'' (1883), the Supreme Court stated that "the [14th Amendment] is undoubtedly self-executing, without any ancillary legislation, so far as its terms are applicable to any existing state of circumstances."<ref>{{ussc|name=Civil Rights Cases|volume=109|page=3|pin=20|year=1883}}</ref>
==== Civil action or criminal conviction ====
The CRS notes that the text of Section 3 does not explicitly require a criminal conviction for disqualification and that ex-Confederate officials disqualified during [[Reconstruction era|Reconstruction]] were instead barred by [[Civil procedure in the United States|civil actions]] brought by [[United States Attorney|federal prosecutors]] or by Congress refusing to seat elected ex-Confederate candidates for Congress under the [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 1: Electoral judgement; Quorum|Electoral Judgement Clause of Article I, Section V]],{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=2}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=545}} while Lynch notes that Section 3 challenges for an incumbent member of Congress would occur under the [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 2: Rules|Expulsion Clause of Article I, Section V]].{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=194–195}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=545}} Referencing the exclusion of Victor L. Berger by the House of Representatives in 1919, the expulsions of members of Congress during the Civil War for supporting the Confederacy, and the exclusions of members-elect under Section 3 during Reconstruction,<ref>{{ussc|name=Powell v. McCormack|volume=395|page=486|pin=544–545|year=1969}}</ref> the Supreme Court held in ''[[Powell v. McCormack]]'' (1969) that Congress may only exclude duly-elected members under qualifications that are constitutionally prescribed and that the controversy presented was not a political question.<ref>{{ussc|name=Powell v. McCormack|volume=395|page=486|pin=518–550|year=1969}}</ref><ref name="CRS 8-12-2002">{{cite report|url=https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL31532.pdf |title=Congressional Candidacy, Incarceration, and the Constitution's Inhabitancy Qualification |last1=Maskell |first1=Jack |date=August 12, 2002 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |page=3 |access-date=October 11, 2023 |website=Federation of American Scientists |archive-date=December 8, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231208222400/https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL31532.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> During the drafting of the 14th Amendment, West Virginia Senator [[Waitman T. Willey]] stated that the Section 3 disqualification was:
{{blockquote|text=not…penal in its character, it is precautionary. It looks not to the past, but it has reference, as I understand it, wholly to the future. It is a measure of self-defense. It is designed to prevent a repetition of treason by these men, and being a permanent provision of the Constitution, it is intended to operate as a preventive of treason hereafter by holding out to the people of the United States that such will the penalty of the offense if they dare commit it. It is therefore not a measure of punishment, but a measure of self-defense.<ref>{{Cite web |date=May 31, 1866 |publisher=Congressional Globe |work=39th United States Congress |title=In Senate: May 31, 1866: Reconstruction |url=https://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/073/0000/00402918.tif |access-date=February 1, 2024 |via=The Library of Congress |page= 2918 |language=en }}</ref>}}
Likewise, Maine Senator Lot M. Morrill stated that there is "an obvious distinction between the penalty which the State affixes to a crime and that disability which the state imposes and has the right to impose against persons whom it does not choose to [e]ntrust with official station",<ref>{{Cite web |date=May 31, 1866 |publisher=Congressional Globe |work=39th United States Congress |title=In Senate: May 31, 1866: Reconstruction |url= https://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/073/0000/00382916.tif |access-date=February 1, 2024 |via=The Library of Congress |page= 2916 |language=en }}</ref> while [[List of United States senators from Missouri|Missouri Senator]] [[John B. Henderson]] stated that Section 3 "is an act fixing the qualifications of officers and not an act for the punishment of crime. … [P]unishment means to take away life, liberty, or property."<ref>{{Cite web |date=June 8, 1866 |publisher=Congressional Globe |work=39th United States Congress |title=In Senate: June 8, 1866: Reconstruction |url= https://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/073/0100/01583036.tif|access-date=February 1, 2024 |via=The Library of Congress |page= 3036 |language=en }}</ref> Citing Morrill, Henderson, and Willey, Graber argues that most members of Congress during the 39th United States Congress understood Section 3 to be a qualification for public office and not a punishment for a criminal offense.{{sfn|Graber|2023a|pp=12–13}} While the CRS notes that there is debate among legal scholars about whether Congress has the authority to pass legislation to name specific individuals disqualified under Section 3 due to the [[Bill of attainder#United States|Bill of Attainder Clause]] of Article I, Section IX,{{sfn|Elsea|2022|p=5}} Baude and Paulsen argue that Section 3 qualifies the clause as well as the Bill of Attainder Clause of [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Section 10: Limits on the States|Article I, Section X]] and the [[Ex post facto law#United States|''Ex post facto'' Law Clauses]] of Article I, Section IX and Section X and the [[Due Process Clause]] of the 5th Amendment along with the Freedom of Speech Clause.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=49–61}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=548–549}} The Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment states that "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=559}}
Noting the text of the Due Process Clause and citing the Supreme Court in ''[[Taylor v. Beckham]]'' (1900) as stating that "The decisions are numerous to the effect that public offices are mere agencies or trusts, and not property as such",<ref>{{ussc|name=Taylor v. Beckham|volume=178|page=548|pin=577|year=1900}}</ref> Baude and Paulsen argue that holding public office in the United States—as it is a [[republic]] rather than a [[constitutional monarchy]] like the [[United Kingdom]] with [[hereditary peer]]age—is a public privilege and [[public trust]] and not clearly a form of "life, liberty, or property" to which persons have a personal or private right protected from deprivation by due process.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=56–57}}{{efn|While the [[House of Lords Act 1999]] abolished hereditary membership in the [[House of Lords]] for most seats, [[List of hereditary peers elected under the House of Lords Act 1999|92 seats were exempted]] for members chosen in [[By-elections to the House of Lords|by-elections]] and the holders of the [[Earl Marshal]] and [[Lord Great Chamberlain]] offices being permitted to sit ''[[Ex officio member|ex officio]]'', and the remaining seats are held by [[life peer]]s appointed by the [[Monarchy of the United Kingdom|Crown]].<ref>{{cite web|title=House of Lords Act 1999|website=[[legislation.gov.uk]]|publisher=[[The National Archives (United Kingdom)|The National Archives]]|url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/34/enacted|access-date=January 16, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Standing Orders of the House of Lords – Public Business|date=February 22, 2021|website=parliament.uk|publisher=[[Parliament of the United Kingdom]]|pages=3–4|url=https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/publications-records/House-of-Lords-Publications/Rules-guides-for-business/Standing-order-public-business/Standing-Orders-Public.pdf|access-date=January 16, 2024}}</ref>}} The Foreign Emoluments Clause states that "No [[Nobility|Title of Nobility]] shall be granted by the United States",<ref name="CRS 1-27-2021" />{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=549}} while the [[Contract Clause]] of Article I, Section X provides that "No State shall … grant any Title of Nobility."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=549}} In ''[[Snowden v. Hughes]]'' (1944), the Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding in ''Taylor v. Beckham'' that holding a state office is not a right of property or liberty secured by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and being a candidate for state office is not a right or privilege protected by the [[Privileges and Immunities Clause]] of [[Article Four of the United States Constitution#Section 2: Rights of state citizens; rights of extradition|Article IV, Section II]].{{sfn|Amado|2022|p=19}}<ref>{{ussc|name=Snowden v. Hughes|volume=321|page=1|pin=7|year=1944}}</ref>{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=554; 561}} Baude and Paulsen also note that the Supreme Court in ''Ex parte Garland'' and ''Cummings v. Missouri'' (1867) explicitly distinguished the criminal punishments in bills of attainder and ''ex post facto'' laws from constitutional qualifications for public office.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=53–54}}<ref>{{ussc|name=Ex parte Garland|volume=71|page=333|pin=378|year=1867}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=Cummings v. Missouri|volume=71|page=277|pin=319|year=1867}}</ref>
While the [[Double Jeopardy Clause]] of the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|5th Amendment]] states that "No person... shall... be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb",{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=559}} the Impeachment Disqualification Clause states that "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification... but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=544}} Noting that the scope of [[high crimes and misdemeanors]] in the Impeachment Clause of Article II, Section IV in practice has not been limited to criminal offenses,{{sfn|Cole|Garvey|2023|pp=7–9; 42–43}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=552}} the CRS notes that the text of the Impeachment Disqualification Clause establishes that disqualification from public office by conviction in an impeachment trial is constitutionally distinct from a punishment levied for conviction in a criminal trial.{{sfn|Cole|Garvey|2023|pp=14–15}} While the Supreme Court held in ''[[Nixon v. United States]]'' (1993) that whether the Senate had properly tried an impeachment trial under the Impeachment Trial Clause was a political question,<ref>{{cite report|last1=Lampe|first1=Joanna R.|date=June 14, 2022|title=The Political Question Doctrine: Congressional Governance and Impeachment as Political Questions (Part 5)|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10760|access-date=December 27, 2023|archive-date=March 7, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230307045628/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10760|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=Nixon v. United States|volume=506|page=224|year=1993}}</ref>{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=544}} the OLC issued an opinion in 2000 that concluded that it is constitutional to indict and try a former president for the same offenses for which the President was impeached by the House of Representatives and acquitted by the Senate.<ref>{{cite report|last=Moss|first=Randolph D.|author-link=Randolph Moss|date=August 18, 2000|title=Whether a Former President May Be Indicted and Tried for the Same Offenses for Which He Was Impeached by the House and Acquitted by the Senate|publisher=Office of Legal Counsel|volume=24, Opinions|pages=110–155|url=https://www.justice.gov/d9/olc/opinions/2000/08/31/op-olc-v024-p0110_0.pdf|access-date=January 3, 2024|archive-date=December 17, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231217060425/https://www.justice.gov/d9/olc/opinions/2000/08/31/op-olc-v024-p0110_0.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>
In ''[[Federalist No. 65]]'', Alexander Hamilton notes that the power to conduct impeachment trials is delegated to the Senate rather than the Supreme Court to preclude the possibility of double jeopardy because of the language in the Impeachment Disqualification Clause,<ref>{{cite news|last1=Taylor|first1=Jessica|date=November 18, 2019|title=Fractured Into Factions? What The Founders Feared About Impeachment|publisher=NPR|url=https://www.npr.org/2019/11/18/779938819/fractured-into-factions-what-the-founders-feared-about-impeachment|access-date=June 14, 2022|archive-date=May 29, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220529040411/https://www.npr.org/2019/11/18/779938819/fractured-into-factions-what-the-founders-feared-about-impeachment|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Chernow|first1=Ron|author-link=Ron Chernow|date=October 18, 2019|title=Hamilton pushed for impeachment powers. Trump is what he had in mind.|newspaper=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/10/18/hamilton-pushed-impeachment-powers-trump-is-what-he-had-mind/|access-date=June 16, 2022|archive-date=February 12, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220212022753/https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/10/18/hamilton-pushed-impeachment-powers-trump-is-what-he-had-mind/|url-status=live}}</ref> stating "Would it be proper that the persons who had disposed [impeached officials of their] fame... in one trial, should, in another trial, for the same offense, be also the disposers of [their] life and ... fortune? Would there not be the greatest reason to apprehend, that error, in the first sentence, would be the parent of error in the second sentence? ... [By] making the same persons judges in both cases, [impeached officials] would... be deprived of the double security intended them by a double trial."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=394–399}}<ref>{{cite web |title=The Avalon Project – Federalist No 65|url=https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp |access-date=December 27, 2023 |website=[[Avalon Project]] |publisher=[[Yale Law School]] |place=[[New Haven, Connecticut|New Haven, CT]] |archive-date=December 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231230182106/https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp |url-status=live }}</ref>{{sfn|Cole|Garvey|2023|pp=14–15}} Along with Magliocca and the CRS, Baude and Paulsen note that following Chase's rulings in the Jefferson Davis treason indictment and ''Griffin's Case'' that Congress passed the Enforcement Act of 1870 to effectuate Section 3 by permitting federal prosecutors to issue writs of ''[[quo warranto]]'' for its enforcement,{{sfn|Elsea|2022|pp=4–5}}{{sfn|Magliocca|2021|pp=3; 34–38}} and Baude and Paulsen also note that the Military Reconstruction Act of 1867 also incorporated the text that would ultimately be included in Section 3.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=100–104}}
Subsequently codified in the Revised Statutes of the United States,<ref>{{usstat|18|317}}</ref> Section 14 of the Enforcement Act of 1870 provided that:
{{blockquote|... whenever any person shall hold office, except as a member of Congress or of some State legislature, contrary to the provisions of [Section 3 of the 14th Amendment], it shall be the duty of the district attorney of the United States for the district in which such person shall hold office, as aforesaid, to proceed against such person, by writ of quo warranto, returnable to the circuit or district court of the United States in such district, and to prosecute the same to the removal of such person from office...<ref>{{usstat|16|143}}</ref>}}
While Lynch notes that Section 14 of the Enforcement Act of 1870 was repealed during the codification of the United States Code in 1948,{{sfn|Lynch|2021|p=206}}<ref>{{usstat|62|993}}</ref> the CRS suggests that private parties can still request that a federal judge issue a writ of ''quo warranto'' for Section 3 disqualification under Rule 81 of the [[Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]] (which were created under the [[Rules Enabling Act]] in 1934).{{sfn|Elsea|2022|pp=4–5}}<ref name="CRS 5-22-2020">{{cite report|last=Lampe|first=Joanna R.|date=May 22, 2020|title=Congress, the Judiciary, and Civil and Criminal Procedure|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11557|access-date=January 12, 2024}}</ref><ref name="Fed. R. Civ. P. R 81">Fed. R. Civ. P. R {{frcp|81}}</ref> Similarly, Lynch argues that state officeholders may be removed under Section 3 under writs of ''quo warranto'',{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=187–188}} and Baude and Paulsen note that the disqualification of Couy Griffin occurred by a ''quo warranto'' lawsuit under state law.{{sfn|Baude|Paulsen|2023|pp=27–29}} Other legal commentators have argued that Griffin's disqualification has established a precedent to bar Trump from office.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Murray |first1=Isabella |date=September 8, 2022 |title=Judge removes local official for engaging in Jan. 6 'insurrection'|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-removes-local-official-engaging-jan-insurrection/story?id=89463597 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221118231459/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-removes-local-official-engaging-jan-insurrection/story?id=89463597|archive-date=November 18, 2022 |access-date=November 18, 2022 |website=ABC News}}</ref> Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in ''Newman v. United States ex rel. Frizzell'' (1915) that upheld a ''quo warranto'' removal under the [[Code of the District of Columbia|District of Columbia Code]],<ref>{{ussc|name=Newman v. United States ex rel. Frizzell|volume=238|page=537|year=1915}}</ref> Lynch notes that subsequent federal case law has interpreted the decision as holding that the District of Columbia ''quo warranto'' laws apply to all federal offices in the District of Columbia, to officers of the United States, and to members of Congress.{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=192–194}}<ref>{{cite court|litigants=Application of James|reporter=[[Federal Supplement|F. Supp.]]|vol=241|opinion=858|court=[[United States District Court for the Southern District of New York|S.D.N.Y.]]|date=1965|url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/241/858/1951206/|access-date=February 29, 2024}}</ref>
Under Article I, Section VIII, "Congress shall have the power … To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District … as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States",{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=548}} and as amended by Congress in 1963 and 1970, Chapter 35 of Title 16 of the District of Columbia Code provides the District of Columbia U.S. District Court the authority to issue writs of ''quo warranto'' against officers of the United States.<ref>{{cite web|title=Chapter 35. Quo Warranto. – D.C. Law Library|website=dccouncil.gov|publisher=[[Council of the District of Columbia]]|url=https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/titles/16/chapters/35|access-date=March 1, 2024}}</ref> While the Supreme Court held in ''Nixon v. Fitzgerald'' that a President is "entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts",<ref>{{ussc|name=Nixon v. Fitzgerald|volume=457|page=731|year=1982}}</ref> the Court subsequently held in ''[[Clinton v. Jones]]'' (1997) that "The principal rationale for affording Presidents immunity from damages actions based on their official acts… provides no support for an immunity for ''unofficial'' conduct."<ref name="Clinton v. Jones p. 682">{{ussc|name=Clinton v. Jones|volume=520|page=681|pin=682|year=1997}}</ref> The Court further concluded in ''Clinton v. Jones'' that "Deferral of [civil] litigation until [a] Presidency ends is not constitutionally required" because the [[Separation of powers under the United States Constitution|constitutional separation of powers]] "does not require federal courts to stay all private actions against the President until he leaves office" and that the constitutional separation of powers doctrine does not apply "[where] there is no suggestion that the Federal Judiciary is being asked to perform any function that might in some way be described as 'executive'… and … there is no possibility that the decision … will curtail the scope of the Executive Branch's official powers."<ref>{{ussc|name=Clinton v. Jones|volume=520|page=681|pin=681–682|year=1997}}</ref>
Reiterating its holdings in ''[[Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer]]'' (1952) and ''[[United States v. Nixon]]'' (1974),<ref>{{ussc|name=Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer|volume=343|page=579|year=1952}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=United States v. Nixon|volume=418|page=683|year=1974}}</ref> the Court noted that "it is settled that the Judiciary may severely burden the Executive Branch by reviewing the legality of the President's official conduct, and may direct appropriate process to the President himself. It must follow that the federal courts have power to determine the legality of the President's unofficial conduct."<ref name="Clinton v. Jones p. 682" /> In 2000, the OLC issued a revision to its 1973 opinion on [[Presidential immunity in the United States|presidential immunity]] that concluded that the Court's rulings in ''United States v. Nixon'', ''Nixon v. Fitzgerald'', and ''Clinton v. Jones'' were consistent with its 1973 opinion, and while the OLC reiterated its position that "The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions", the OLC acknowledged the Court's conclusion in ''Clinton v. Jones'' that an incumbent President has no immunity from civil litigation seeking damages for unofficial conduct.<ref>{{cite report|last=Moss|first=Randolph D.|date=October 16, 2000|title=A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution|publisher=Office of Legal Counsel|volume=24, Opinions|pages=222–260|url=https://www.justice.gov/d9/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf|access-date=January 29, 2024}}</ref> In February 2022, District of Columbia U.S. District Court Judge [[Amit Mehta]] ruled that presidential immunity did not shield Trump from the lawsuits filed by Bennie Thompson, Eric Swalwell, and the U.S. Capitol Police officers.<ref>{{cite news|last=Tau|first=Byron|date=February 18, 2022|title=Judge Allows Lawsuits to Proceed Against Donald Trump, Militia Groups in Jan 6. Lawsuit|work=The Wall Street Journal|publisher=News Corp|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-allows-lawsuits-to-proceed-against-donald-trump-militia-groups-in-jan-6-lawsuit-11645218911|access-date=October 5, 2023}}</ref>
While Trump appealed Mehta's ruling to the U.S. District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals in March 2022,<ref>{{cite news|last1=Cheney|first1=Kyle|last2=Gerstein|first2=Josh|date=November 27, 2023|title=Bid to hold Trump accountable for Jan. 6 violence stalls at appeals court|website=Politico|publisher=Axel Springer SE|url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/27/trump-immunity-appeal-00128786|access-date=November 29, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Barber|first=C. Ryan|date=March 2, 2023|title=Trump Can Be Sued Over Role in Jan. 6 Attack, Justice Department Says|work=The Wall Street Journal|publisher=News Corp|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-can-be-sued-over-role-in-jan-6-attack-justice-department-says-b9f5a58c|access-date=October 5, 2023}}</ref> the Circuit Court of Appeals panel (with Judges Gregory Katsas, [[Judith W. Rogers]], and [[Sri Srinivasan]] presiding) upheld Mehta's ruling in December 2023 because Trump was acting "as an office-seeker not office-holder" due to his speech on January 6 being a campaign event, and as such, did not fall within the "outer perimeter" standard established in ''Nixon v. Fitzgerald''.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Polantz|first1=Katelyn|last2=Lybrand|first2=Holmes|date=December 1, 2023|title=Trump doesn't have presidential immunity from lawsuits over January 6, appeals court rules|publisher=CNN|url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/01/politics/trump-presidential-immunity-january-6-lawsuits/index.html|access-date=December 1, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Weiner|first1=Rachel|last2=Hsu|first2=Spencer S.|date=December 1, 2023|title=Trump can be held civilly liable in Jan. 6 riot, judges rule|work=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/12/01/trump-can-be-sued-jan-6-immunity/|access-date=December 1, 2023}}</ref> On the same day the Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld the ruling that Trump was not immune from the civil lawsuits, District of Columbia U.S. District Court Judge [[Tanya Chutkan]] rejected a motion to dismiss the federal election obstruction indictment against Trump under presidential immunity which Trump appealed.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Barnes |first1=Daniel |last2=Richards |first2=Zoë |date=December 1, 2023 |title=Judge denies two of Trump's motions to dismiss his federal election interference case |publisher=NBC News |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/judge-denies-two-trumps-motions-dismiss-federal-election-interference-rcna127720 |access-date=December 3, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Legare |first=Robert |date=December 1, 2023 |title=Judge rejects Trump's motion to dismiss 2020 federal election interference case |publisher=CBS News |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-rejects-trump-motion-to-dismiss-2020-federal-election-interference-case/ |access-date=December 3, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=December 7, 2023 |title=Trump appeals Jan. 6 immunity ruling, launching process that may delay trial |newspaper=Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/12/07/trump-appeal-trial-immunity/ |access-date=December 11, 2023}}</ref> In February 2024, the Circuit Court of Appeals panel (with Judges Florence Pan, [[J. Michelle Childs]], and [[Karen L. Henderson]] presiding) unanimously affirmed the District Court ruling, concluding that Trump's alleged actions "lacked any lawful discretionary authority… and he is answerable in court for his conduct" because "former President Trump has become citizen Trump... [and] any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution."<ref>{{cite news|last1=Tucker|first1=Eric|last2=Richer|first2=Alanna Durkin|date=February 6, 2024|title=Trump is not immune from prosecution in his 2020 election interference case, US appeals court says|publisher=Associated Press|url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-capitol-riot-presidential-immunity-appeal-46c2d7fc7807cd3262764d35e47f390e|access-date=February 6, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Faulders|first1=Katherine|last2=Mallin|first2=Alexander|last3=Charalambous|first3=Peter|date=February 6, 2024|title=Appeals court rejects Trump's immunity claim in federal election interference case|publisher=ABC News|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/appeals-court-rejects-trumps-immunity-claim-federal-election/story?id=106380940|access-date=February 6, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Cole|first1=Devan|last2=Rabinowitz|first2=Hannah|last3=Lybrand|first3=Holmes|last4=Polantz|first4=Katelyn|last5=Cohen|first5=Marshall|date=February 6, 2024|title=Trump does not have presidential immunity in January 6 case, federal appeals court rules|publisher=CNN|url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/06/politics/trump-immunity-court-of-appeals/index.html|access-date=February 6, 2024}}</ref>
=== Ballot access and Electoral College vote count ===
{{See also|Incitatus|Non-human electoral candidates|List of frivolous political parties}}
As the "practical construction" of the Presidential Electors Clause had "conceded [[plenary power]] to the state legislatures in [choosing the method or mode of] appointment of electors",<ref>{{ussc|name=McPherson v. Blacker|volume=146|page=1|pin=35|year=1892}}</ref> the Supreme Court upheld a [[Michigan]] [[election law]] appointing presidential electors in ''[[McPherson v. Blacker]]'' (1892) because "where there is ambiguity or doubt" as to the meaning of constitutional text the "contemporaneous and subsequent practical construction is entitled to the greatest weight."<ref>{{ussc|name=McPherson v. Blacker|volume=146|page=1|pin=27|year=1892}}</ref>{{sfn|Neale|Nolan|2019|pp=26–29}} The Presidential Electors Clause states that "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress",{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=549}} and the clause delegates the authority to create election laws regulating [[election administration]] for presidential elections to state governments rather than the federal government.{{sfn|Gamboa|2001|pp=7–9}} In ''[[Chiafalo v. Washington]]'' (2020), the Court clarified in a unanimous decision that while the power delegated to state governments under the Presidential Electors Clause is not absolute,{{sfn|Neale|Nolan|2019|p=30}} the clause "gives the States far-reaching authority over presidential electors, absent some other constitutional constraint" and references the Presidential Qualifications Clause as an example.<ref>{{ussc|name=Chiafalo v. Washington|volume=591|year=2020|docket=19-465|slip=9}}</ref>{{sfn|Shelly|2020|pp=2–3}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=550–551}}
In ''[[Moore v. Harper]]'' (2023), the Court clarified further that the Presidential Electors Clause and the [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 1: Time, place, and manner of holding elections|Congressional Elections Clause of Article I, Section IV]] "[do] not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections" within their respective states in rejection of [[independent state legislature theory]], ruling that election laws passed by state legislatures pursuant to the clauses are not only restrained by the federal constitution and federal law but also remain subject to judicial review by state courts, [[presentment]] to [[Governor (United States)|state governors]], and the constraints of [[State constitutions in the United States|state constitutions]].<ref>{{ussc|name=Moore v. Harper|volume=600|year=2023|docket=21-1271|slip=11–29}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Sherman|first1=Mark|date=June 27, 2023|title=Supreme Court upholds North Carolina ruling, declines 'independent state legislature' theory|work=PBS NewsHour|publisher=WETA|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/supreme-court-upholds-north-carolina-ruling-declines-to-invoke-independent-state-legislature-theory|access-date=June 27, 2023|archive-date=June 27, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230627143803/https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/supreme-court-upholds-north-carolina-ruling-declines-to-invoke-independent-state-legislature-theory|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Hurley|first1=Lawrence|date=June 27, 2023|title=Supreme Court rules against giving state legislatures unchecked control over federal elections|publisher=NBC News|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-republicans-north-carolina-elections-dispute-rcna68630|access-date=June 27, 2023|archive-date=June 27, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230627142042/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-republicans-north-carolina-elections-dispute-rcna68630|url-status=live}}</ref> In upholding a California election law that denied [[ballot access]] to [[Independent politician|independent candidates]] who had a registered affiliation with a [[Political parties in the United States|political party]] within one year of a [[primary election]], the Supreme Court noted in ''[[Storer v. Brown]]'' (1974) that "the States have evolved comprehensive, and in many respects complex, election codes regulating in most substantial ways, with respect to both federal and state elections, the time, place, and manner of holding primary and general elections... and the selection and qualification of candidates",<ref>{{ussc|name=Storer v. Brown|volume=415|page=724|pin=730|year=1974}}</ref>{{sfn|Gamboa|2001|p=3}} and reiterating its holding in ''Jenness v. Fortson'' (1971),<ref>{{ussc|name=Jenness v. Fortson|volume=403|page=431|pin=442|year=1971}}</ref> the Court also noted that each "State has an interest, if not a duty, to protect the integrity of its political processes from frivolous or fraudulent candidacies."<ref>{{ussc|name=Storer v. Brown|volume=415|page=724|pin=733|year=1974}}</ref>{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024b|p=3}}
In upholding a [[Washington (state)|Washington]] general election ballot access law that required [[Third party (U.S. politics)|third-party candidates]] receive 1% of the vote in the state's [[blanket primary]] in ''Munro v. Socialist Workers Party'' (1986), the Court reiterated that such laws are constitutional to "prevent voter confusion, ballot overcrowding, or the presence of frivolous candidacies".<ref>{{ussc|name=Munro v. Socialist Workers|volume=479|page=189|pin=194–195|year=1986}}</ref> However, [[List of United States representatives from Maryland|Maryland Representative]] [[Jamie Raskin]] and [[National Voting Rights Institute]] founder [[John Bonifaz]] have noted that while the Supreme Court recognized a [[Rational basis review|legitimate government interest]] in blocking "frivolous candidacies" from the ballot in ''Bullock v. Carter'' (1972), the Court did not establish any qualifying criteria for "frivolous candidacies" and only held that using wealth and fundraising ability as criteria would "exclude legitimate as well as frivolous candidates".<ref>{{ussc|name=Bullock v. Carter|volume=405|page=134|pin=145–146|year=1972}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Raskin|first1=Jamin|last2=Bonifaz|first2=John|year=1994|title=The Constitutional Imperative and Practical Superiority of Democratically Financed Elections|journal=[[Columbia Law Review]]|publisher=Columbia Law Review Association|volume=94|issue=4|page=1169|doi=10.2307/1123281|jstor=1123281}}</ref> The Supreme Court reaffirmed in ''Lubin v. Panish'' (1974) that ability to pay a filing fee as a condition for ballot access was unconstitutional,<ref>{{ussc|name=Lubin v. Panish|volume=415|page=709|year=1974}}</ref> while the Supreme Court struck down a pair of [[Ohio]] ballot access laws in ''[[Williams v. Rhodes]]'' (1968) and ''[[Anderson v. Celebrezze]]'' (1983) for being discriminatory towards third party and independent candidates in violation of the right to [[freedom of association]] under the 1st Amendment and the [[Equal Protection Clause]].{{sfn|Neale|Nolan|2019|p=30}}{{sfn|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024b|p=3}}<ref>{{ussc|name=Williams v. Rhodes|volume=393|page=23|pin=23–24|year=1968}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=Anderson v. Celebrezze|volume=460|page=780|pin=790–795|year=1983}}</ref>
In most states, ballot access for candidates is acquired by signature [[petition]]s that indicate a minimum level of support,{{sfn|Amado|2022|pp=27–32}} while political parties typically acquire ballot access for their nominees by a minimum vote share in a previous election, a minimum percentage of [[Voter registration in the United States|voter registrations]] in the state that are party-affiliated, or signature petitions.{{sfn|Amado|2022|pp=54–61}}<ref>{{cite report|title=Summary: State Laws Regarding Presidential Ballot Access for the General Election|date=January 2020|publisher=[[National Association of Secretaries of State]]|url=https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/surveys/2020-07/research-ballot-access-president-Jan20_0.pdf|access-date=January 8, 2024|archive-date=November 17, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231117225142/https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/surveys/2020-07/research-ballot-access-president-Jan20_0.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> While the Court held in ''[[Noerr–Pennington doctrine|Eastern Railroad Conference v. Noerr Motors]]'' (1961) and ''[[California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited]]'' (1972) that the [[right to petition in the United States|right to petition]] under the 1st Amendment is not confined to "a redress of grievances" and extends to the "approach of citizens or groups of them to administrative agencies... courts... [and] all departments of the Government",<ref>{{ussc|name=Eastern R. Conference v. Noerr Motors|volume=365|page=127|year=1961}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited|volume=404|page=508|pin=510|year=1972}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Rights of Assembly and Petition|website=[[Justia]]|url=https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/18-rights-of-assembly-and-petition.html|access-date=January 5, 2024|archive-date=January 6, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240106042753/https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/18-rights-of-assembly-and-petition.html|url-status=live}}</ref>{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=558}} the Court also held in ''Neitzke v. Williams'' (1989) that a legal claim is "frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact."<ref>{{ussc|name=Neitzke v. Williams|volume=490|page=319|pin=325|year=1989}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=frivolous – Wex – US Law|website=Legal Information Institute|publisher=Cornell Law School|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/frivolous|access-date=January 5, 2024|archive-date=June 2, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230602010611/https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/frivolous|url-status=live}}</ref> In addition to ballot access laws, most states have election laws mandating [[Vote counting|vote tabulation]] registration requirements for [[write-in candidate]]s.<ref>{{cite web |date=August 18, 2023 |title=Write-in candidates for federal and state elections|url=https://www.usa.gov/write-in-candidates |access-date=December 6, 2023 |website=[[USA.gov]] |publisher=[[General Services Administration]] |archive-date=December 8, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231208222400/https://www.usa.gov/write-in-candidates |url-status=live }}</ref>{{sfn|Election Assistance Commission|2023|pp=5–7}} Since at least the [[New York City mayoral elections|1932 New York City mayoral election]], [[Mickey Mouse]] has received write-in votes in many elections as a [[protest vote]].<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://prospect.org/article/if-you-give-mouse-vote |title=If You Give a Mouse a Vote |last1=Fuller |first1=Jaime |date=November 5, 2013 |journal=[[The American Prospect]] |access-date=December 30, 2014 |archive-date=January 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180114182610/http://prospect.org/article/if-you-give-mouse-vote |url-status=live }}</ref>{{sfn|Election Assistance Commission|2023|p=1}}
In reaffirming its holding in ''Powell v. McCormack'', the Court clarified in ''[[U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton]]'' (1995) that state election laws regulating ballot access and election administration do not amount to additional qualifications for elected office because such laws "{{zero width joiner}}[regulate] election ''procedures'' and [do] not ... [render] a class of potential candidates ineligible",<ref>{{ussc|name=U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton|volume=514|page=779|pin=834–835|year=1995}}</ref><ref name="CRS 8-12-2002" /> but referencing the 22nd Amendment, the Court concluded that [[Term limits in the United States|term limits]] do amount to a qualification because "[t]erm limits... unquestionably restrict the ability of voters to vote for whom they wish."<ref>{{ussc|name=U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton|volume=514|page=779|pin=837|year=1995}}</ref> The Court also stated that "the Framers understood the [Congressional] Elections Clause as a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power … to evade important constitutional restraints."<ref>{{ussc|name=U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton|volume=514|page=779|pin=833–834|year=1995}}</ref> Associate Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] argued in the [[dissenting opinion]] that state governments had the [[Reserved powers|reserved power]] to create term limits for members of Congress from their respective states, but qualified that state election laws may be invalidated if "something in the federal constitution ... deprives the [States of] the power to enact such [a] measur[e]",<ref>{{ussc|name=U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton|volume=514|page=779|pin=850|year=1995|dissent=Thomas, J.}}</ref> and that states have "no reserved power to establish qualifications for the office of President... [b]ecause ... no State may legislate for another State".<ref>{{cite journal|last=Feeley|first=Kristin|title=Comment: Guaranteeing a Federally Elected President|year=2009|journal=[[Northwestern University Law Review]]|volume=103|issue=3|publisher=[[Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law]]|url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1121483|ssrn=1121483|access-date=October 13, 2020|archive-date=March 28, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200328195108/https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1121483|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton|volume=514|page=779|pin=861|year=1995|dissent=Thomas, J.}}</ref>
While Thomas reiterated the reasoning of the dissenting opinion in his [[concurring opinion]] in ''Chiafalo v. Washington'',{{sfn|Shelly|2020|pp=2–3}} Thomas stated in the second part of his concurring opinion that the "powers related to [presidential] electors reside with States to the extent that the Constitution does not remove or restrict that power", and citing ''Williams v. Rhodes'', that states cannot exercise their powers over presidential electors "in such a way as to violate express constitutional commands."<ref>{{ussc|name=Chiafalo v. Washington|volume=591|year=2020|docket=19-465|slip=11–12|concurrence=Thomas, J.|concurrence-type=concurring in judgment}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=Williams v. Rhodes|volume=393|page=23|pin=29|year=1968}}</ref> In addition to joining with the majority in ''Chiafalo v. Washington'', Associate Justice [[Neil Gorsuch]] joined Thomas in the second part of the concurring opinion.{{sfn|Shelly|2020|pp=2–3}}<ref>{{ussc|name=Chiafalo v. Washington|volume=591|year=2020|docket=19-465|slip=3}}</ref> Lynch cites the Court's opinion in ''U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton'' as suggesting that state governments are mandated to enforce the constitutional eligibility requirements for federal office, and while acknowledging that ballot access laws vary by state,{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=184–186}} Lynch notes that many states permit formal challenges to candidates for the presidency and vice presidency on the basis of constitutional eligibility and that states can prohibit presidential electors from voting for constitutionally ineligible candidates.{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=189–190}} In summarizing the debate among legal scholars over whether the 22nd Amendment places a restriction on holding the Presidency and Vice Presidency due to the eligibility requirement for the Vice Presidency under the 12th Amendment,{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=561}} the CRS has noted that the text of the 22nd Amendment explicitly requires at a minimum that "No person shall be ''elected'' to the office of the President more than twice".<ref>{{cite report|last=Neale|first=Thomas H.|date=April 15, 2019|title=Presidential Terms and Tenure: Perspectives and Proposals for Change|publisher=Congressional Research Service|pages=24–26|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R40864|access-date=January 11, 2024}}</ref>{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=565}}
The CRS has also noted that the concurring opinion in the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the Madison Cawthorn Section 3 lawsuit argued that no court has ever held that state governments are precluded from determining the constitutional eligibility of candidates for Congress under the Electoral Judgement Clause and may do so under the Congressional Elections Clause.<ref name="CRS 6-1-2022 p. 3" />{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=544}} While Lynch suggests that Section 3 challenges to prevent the administration of an oath of office to candidates-elect for state office could occur by a writ of [[mandamus]] and that states retain the authority to judge legal contests for presidential elections,{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=186–187}} Lynch argues that post-election Section 3 challenges would more likely be used to challenge the eligibility of presidential electors rather than a President-elect or Vice President-elect and that a post-election but pre-inauguration Section 3 challenge to candidates-elect for the latter positions would more likely occur at the Electoral College vote count.{{sfn|Lynch|2021|pp=190–191}} Conversely, noting that the 1860 [[List of United States Republican Party presidential tickets|Republican Party presidential ticket]] of Abraham Lincoln and [[Hannibal Hamlin]] was not on the ballot in multiple states that appointed their presidential electors on the basis of a poll,{{efn|The 1860 Republican ticket was not on the ballot in 9 states: [[1860 United States presidential election in Alabama|Alabama]], [[1860 United States presidential election in Arkansas|Arkansas]], [[1860 United States presidential election in Florida|Florida]], [[1860 United States presidential election in Georgia|Georgia]], [[1860 United States presidential election in Louisiana|Louisiana]], [[1860 United States presidential election in Mississippi|Mississippi]], [[1860 United States presidential election in North Carolina|North Carolina]], [[1860 United States presidential election in Tennessee|Tennessee]], and [[1860 United States presidential election in Texas|Texas]]. Presidential electors in [[1860 United States presidential election in South Carolina|South Carolina]] were appointed at the discretion of the South Carolina General Assembly and not on the basis of a poll.<ref>{{cite book|last=Mansch|first=Larry D.|year=2005|title=Abraham Lincoln, President-elect: The Four Critical Months from Election to Inauguration|publisher=McFarland & Company|location=Jefferson, North Carolina|url={{google books|plainurl=y|id=NMt-yrjVE50C}}|isbn=978-0-7864-2026-1 |page=61}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Donald |first=David Herbert |author-link=David Herbert Donald |year=1996 |title=Lincoln |location=New York |publisher=Simon & Schuster|page= 256 |isbn=978-0-684-82535-9}}</ref><ref name="Williams 2012 p. 1567" />}} [[Yale Law School]] professor [[Akhil Reed Amar|Akhil Amar]] has argued that there is no constitutional requirement that each state apply Section 3 following the same ballot access procedures and that states may also leave Section 3 to be enforced instead by Congress at the Electoral College vote count.<ref>{{cite news|last=Amar|first=Akhil Reed|date=February 7, 2024|title=The Supreme Court Should Get Out of the Insurrection Business|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Company|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/07/opinion/supreme-court-trump-section-3.html|access-date=February 7, 2024}}</ref>
Rule 81 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolished federal writs of mandamus, but provides that "Relief previously available through them may be obtained by appropriate action or motion under these rules."<ref name="Fed. R. Civ. P. R 81" /> Under Section 109 of the ECRA, members of Congress remain permitted to object to the counting of the electoral votes from any state or the District of Columbia at the Electoral College vote count (which remains scheduled for the January 6 after the [[United States Electoral College#Meetings|Electoral College meetings]]) if the electors were not lawfully certified under a [[certificate of ascertainment]] or if one or more of the electoral votes have not been regularly given, and concurrent majorities in both houses of Congress remain necessary for objections to be sustained.<ref name="NPR 12-23-2022" /><ref>{{usstat|136|5237}}, {{uspl|117|328}}, {{USC|3|15}}</ref>{{sfn|Rybicki|Whitaker|2020|pp=6–8}} At the Electoral College vote count following the [[1872 United States presidential election|1872 presidential election]], objections to counting the 14 electoral votes from [[1872 United States presidential election in Arkansas|Arkansas]] and [[1872 United States presidential election in Louisiana|Louisiana]] for the Republican Party ticket were sustained due to voting irregularities and allegations of [[electoral fraud]],{{sfn|Rybicki|Whitaker|2020|pp=4–5}}{{sfn|Senate Journal 42(3)|pp=340–344}} while objections to counting the 3 electoral votes from [[1872 United States presidential election in Georgia|Georgia]] that had been cast for [[Liberal Republican Party (United States)|Liberal Republican Party]] and [[List of United States Democratic Party presidential tickets|Democratic Party presidential nominee]] [[Horace Greeley]] (who had died after [[Election Day (United States)|Election Day]] but prior to the Electoral College meetings) were sustained because Greeley's death rendered him constitutionally ineligible for the Presidency as he was "[no longer] a person within the meaning of the Constitution" and so his electoral votes "[could not] lawfully be counted".{{sfn|Neale|2020c|p=4}}{{sfn|Senate Journal 42(3)|pp=334–337}}
At the Electoral College meetings following the [[1912 United States presidential election|1912 presidential election]], the 8 electoral votes from [[1912 United States presidential election in Utah|Utah]] and [[1912 United States presidential election in Vermont|Vermont]] for the Republican Party nominee for vice president were cast for [[Nicholas Murray Butler]] instead of [[James S. Sherman]], as the latter, who had been nominated at the [[1912 Republican National Convention|Republican National Convention]], died less than a week before Election Day.{{sfn|Neale|2020c|p=3}} While holding that state governments may restrict [[Faithless elector|presidential electors from voting faithlessly]] upon pain of penalty, removal, and replacement, the Supreme Court also noted in ''Chiafalo v. Washington'' that while the question had not been presented in the case, "nothing in this opinion should be taken to permit the States to bind electors to a deceased candidate" in reference to the fact that the 63 presidential electors pledged to Horace Greeley in 1872 who voted faithlessly accounted for one-third of all of the faithless elector votes in the history of U.S. presidential elections.<ref>{{ussc|name=Chiafalo v. Washington|volume=591|year=2020|docket=19-465|slip=16–17}}</ref>{{sfn|Shelly|2020|p=3}}{{sfn|Neale|2020c|p=4}} In ''Fitzgerald v. Green'' (1890) and ''[[Bush v. Gore]]'' (2000), the Supreme Court held that presidential electors are state government officials,<ref>{{cite journal|first1=Bradley T.|last1=Turflinger|title=Fifty Republics and the National Popular Vote: How the Guarantee Clause Should Protect States Striving for Equal Protection in Presidential Elections|url=http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1443&context=vulr|journal=Valparaiso University Law Review|publisher=Valco Scholar|access-date=September 25, 2012|year=2011|volume=45|issue=3|page=798|archive-date=October 6, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141006180449/http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1443&context=vulr|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=In re Green|volume=134|page=377|pin=379|year=1890}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|name=Bush v. Gore|volume=531|page=98|pin=112|year=2000}}</ref> and the Oath or Affirmation Clause also requires that "all executive and judicial Officers... of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution".{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=555–556}} Under the 12th Amendment, [[contingent election]]s for president and Vice President are held by the House of Representatives and the Senate respectively if no candidate receives "a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed".{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=560–561}}{{sfn|Neale|2020b|p=i}}{{sfn|Rybicki|Whitaker|2020|pp=4–5}}
Section 1 of the [[Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution|20th Amendment]] changed the expiration date for congressional terms of office to January 3 and presidential and vice presidential terms of office to January 20, and Section 2 of the 20th Amendment changed the commencement date of [[Legislative session|congressional sessions]] to January 3 from the first Monday of December under the [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 2: Sessions of Congress|Congressional Sessions Clause of Article I, Section IV]].{{sfn|Neale|2020b|p=9}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=544–545; 564}} Consequently, contingent elections are now conducted by incoming congressional sessions rather than by [[lame-duck session]]s.{{sfn|Neale|2020b|pp=9–10}} Section 3 of the 20th Amendment provides that if a [[President-elect of the United States|President-elect]] is not chosen or fails to qualify before [[United States presidential inauguration|Inauguration Day]] that the [[Vice President-elect of the United States|Vice President-elect]] [[Acting President of the United States|acts as President]] until a President is chosen; in the event that a contingent election conducted by the House fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day or if the Electoral College attempts to elect a President constitutionally ineligible to serve, and if a Vice President has also not been elected or the Vice President-elect has failed to qualify by Inauguration Day as well, Congress is delegated the power to declare who will act as President or create a selection process by which an Acting President is chosen until a President or Vice President has qualified.{{sfn|Neale|2020a|p=4}}{{sfn|Neale|2020b|p=10}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=564–565}} Under Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, the Vice President-elect only becomes the President if the President-elect dies before Inauguration Day.{{sfn|Continuity of Government Commission|2009|p=31}}{{sfn|Neale|2020a|p=4}}{{sfn|Neale|2020c|pp=6–7}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=564–565}}
The 80th United States Congress included "failure to qualify" as a condition for presidential succession under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947.{{sfn|Continuity of Government Commission|2009|p=31}} Under Sections 102 and 106 of the ECRA, states may only appoint presidential electors under election laws enacted prior to Election Day and the electors are required to meet on the first Tuesday following the second Wednesday of December following their appointment.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Underhill |first1=Wendy |date=January 16, 2023 |title=What the Electoral Count Reform Act Means for States |url=https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/what-the-electoral-count-reform-act-means-for-states |access-date=August 21, 2023 |publisher=National Conference of State Legislatures |archive-date=August 21, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230821194340/https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/what-the-electoral-count-reform-act-means-for-states |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{usstat|136|5233}}, {{uspl|117|328}}, {{usc|3|1}}, {{usc|3|7}}</ref> Under the [[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 4: Election day|Electoral College Meetings Clause of Article II, Section I]], "Congress may determine the Time of [choosing presidential] Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes",{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=550}} while the Necessary and Proper Clause states that "Congress shall have Power... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution ... all ... Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States".{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=548}}{{sfn|Gamboa|2001|pp=7–9}} In ''[[Burroughs v. United States]]'' (1934), the Supreme Court upheld the [[Federal Corrupt Practices Act]] because that law "[n]either in purpose nor in effect ... interfere[d] with the power of a state to appoint electors or the manner in which their appointment shall be made",<ref>{{ussc|name=Burroughs v. United States|volume=290|page=534|pin=544|year=1934}}</ref> and since presidential electors "exercise federal functions under... the Constitution... Congress [possesses the power] to pass appropriate legislation to safeguard [presidential elections] ... to preserve the departments and institutions of the general government from impairment or destruction, whether threatened by force or by corruption."<ref>{{ussc|name=Burroughs v. United States|volume=290|page=534|pin=545|year=1934}}</ref>{{sfn|Gamboa|2001|pp=7–9}}{{efn|The Impeachment Clause of Article II, Section IV lists "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" as the [[Federal impeachment in the United States|impeachable offenses]] for President, Vice President, and the civil officers of the United States.{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|pp=551–552}}}}
== Litigation ==
A court may be required to make a final determination that Trump was disqualified under Section 3, according to some legal scholars.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Rosenwald |first1=Michael S. |date=January 12, 2021 |title=There's an alternative to impeachment or 25th Amendment for Trump, historians say |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/01/11/14th-amendment-trump-insurrection-impeachment/ |access-date=January 18, 2021|archive-date=January 18, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210118095401/https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/01/11/14th-amendment-trump-insurrection-impeachment/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Luttig |first1=J. Michael |last2=Wallace |first2=Nicole |date=August 22, 2023 |title=Fmr. federal judge: Trump, allies committed 'grave crimes' with 2020 election coup plot|work=[[MSNBC]]|url=https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/watch/fmr-federal-judge-trump-allies-committed-grave-crimes-with-2020-election-coup-plot-191375429762 |url-status=live |access-date=August 23, 2023|archive-url=https://archive.today/20230823211323/https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/watch/fmr-federal-judge-trump-allies-committed-grave-crimes-with-2020-election-coup-plot-191375429762 |archive-date=August 23, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Luttig |first1=J. Michael|last2=Wallace|first2=Nicole|date=August 22, 2023 |title=Judge Luttig: Secretaries Of States Will Decline To Place Trump On The Ballot, Argue He Is Unqualified|work=[[RealClearPolitics]]|url=https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/08/22/judge_luttig_secretaries_of_states_will_decline_to_place_trump_on_the_ballot_argue_he_is_unqualified.html |url-status=live |access-date=August 23, 2023|archive-url=https://archive.today/wip/qNVot |archive-date=August 23, 2023}}</ref> The United States Supreme Court has never ruled on the insurrection clause in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.<ref name="Cohen">{{Cite news |last1=Cohen |first1=Marshall |date=November 14, 2023 |title=Trump to remain on Michigan ballot after judge rejects another 14th Amendment challenge|language=en|work=[[CNN]]|url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/14/politics/michigan-judge-trump-14th-amendment/index.html |access-date=November 18, 2023 |archive-date=November 18, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231118004525/https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/14/politics/michigan-judge-trump-14th-amendment/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="BBC231118">{{Cite news|date=November 18, 2023 |title=Donald Trump to remain on Colorado primary ballot after judge dismisses lawsuit |language=en-GB |work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67446313 |access-date=November 18, 2023|archive-date=November 18, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231118004150/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67446313 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Woodruff |first1=Chase |date=December 6, 2023|title=Colorado Supreme Court hears arguments in Trump 14th Amendment case |language=en |work=[[Colorado Newsline]]|url=https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/12/06/colorado-supreme-court-trump-14th-amendment/|access-date=December 8, 2023 |archive-date=December 7, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231207224042/https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/12/06/colorado-supreme-court-trump-14th-amendment/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
In December 2023, pending challenges to Trump's eligibility existed in state courts in Colorado, Michigan, Oregon, and Wisconsin; and in federal courts in Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, New York, New Mexico, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Corasaniti |first1=Nick |date=December 20, 2023 |title=Here Are the Other States Where Trump's Ballot Eligibility Faces a Challenge |language=en-US |work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/20/us/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-other-states.html |access-date=December 20, 2023 |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=December 20, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231220231614/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/20/us/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-other-states.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |first1=Hyemin |last1=Han |first2=Caleb |last2=Benjamin |date=October 30, 2023|first3=Anna|last3=Bower|first4=Matt |last4=Gluck |first5=Tyler |last5=McBrien |first6=Roger |last6=Parloff |title=Tracking Section 3 Trump Disqualification Challenges |url=https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker |website=Lawfare |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231230045108/https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker |url-status=live |archive-date=December 30, 2023 |language=en}}</ref> The non-profit group [[Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington]] (CREW) and other advocacy groups and individuals are planning state-by-state efforts to keep Trump off state ballots.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Scherer |first1=Michael |date=April 19, 2023 |title=Trump team prepares to fight efforts to block him from ballots over Jan. 6 |language=en-US |newspaper=Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/18/trump-ballots-january-6/ |access-date=October 27, 2023 |issn=0190-8286}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Demissie |first1=Hannah |last2=Gersony |first2=Laura |date=August 26, 2023|title=14th Amendment, Section 3: A new legal battle against Trump takes shape |work=[[ABC News]]|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/14th-amendment-section-3-new-legal-battle-trump/story?id=102547316 |access-date=September 6, 2023|archive-date=September 5, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230905231239/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/14th-amendment-section-3-new-legal-battle-trump/story?id=102547316 |url-status=live }}</ref>
=== Supreme Court ===
In January 2024, the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] announced that it would hear ''[[Trump v. Anderson]]'' to determine Trump's electoral eligibility, following Trump's appeal against the [[Colorado district courts|Colorado District Court's]] [[Trump v. Anderson|decision]] to disqualify him from running in that state. The ruling will apply across all states.<ref name=":2">{{Cite news |date=January 5, 2024 |title=Supreme Court to rule if Trump can run for president|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67899435|access-date=January 5, 2024 |work=BBC News|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240106105126/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67899435|archive-date=January 6, 2024 |url-status=live |language=en-GB}}</ref> On January 26, lawyers for CREW submitted a court filing describing the attack on the Capitol and Trump's actions beforehand.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sherman |first=Mark |date=January 27, 2024|title=SCOTUS Urged To Rule Trump Ineligible To Be President Again Because Of Jan. 6 Insurrection |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-urged-rule-trump-ineligible-president-again-over-jan_n_65b500afe4b0d407294f429a |access-date=January 27, 2024 |website=HuffPost |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=January 26, 2024 |title=Brief on the merits for Anderson Respondents (Trump v. Anderson No. 23-719) |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/298854/20240126115645084_23-719%20Anderson%20Respondents%20Merits%20Brief.pdf |access-date=January 27, 2024 |website=supremecourt.gov}}</ref>
On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court heard arguments. Trump did not attend.<ref name=reutersfeb8/> On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states had no authority to remove Trump from their ballots, reversing the Colorado Supreme Court.<ref name = "politicoMarch4"/>
=== Lower federal courts ===
On August 24, 2023, Lawrence Caplan, a tax attorney in [[Palm Beach County]], Florida, filed a challenge in the [[United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida|Southern Florida U.S. District Court]] to disqualify Trump from the 2024 General Election, citing the 14th Amendment.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Lee |first1=Ella |date=August 25, 2023 |title=Florida lawyer files challenge to disqualify Trump from 2024 race, citing 14th Amendment |work=The Hill|url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4171623-florida-lawyer-files-challenge-to-disqualify-trump-from-2024-race-citing-14th-amendment/ |access-date=December 20, 2023 |archive-date=December 3, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231203210638/https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4171623-florida-lawyer-files-challenge-to-disqualify-trump-from-2024-race-citing-14th-amendment/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=August 24, 2023 |title=Caplan v. TRUMP, 0:23-cv-61628, (S.D. Fla. Aug 24, 2023) ECF No.|url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67724934/1/caplan-v-trump/ |website=Court Listener |access-date=December 20, 2023 |archive-date=September 5, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230905134136/https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67724934/1/caplan-v-trump/ |url-status=live }}</ref> One week later on September 1, [[United States District Judge]] [[Robin L. Rosenberg]] dismissed the case for lack of [[Standing (law)|standing]].<ref>{{cite news |last1=Man |first1=Anthony |date=September 1, 2023 |title=Federal judge dismisses Florida lawsuit seeking to have Trump declared ineligible for presidency |work=The South Florida Sun Sentinel|url=https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2023/09/01/federal-judge-dismisses-florida-lawsuit-seeking-to-have-trump-declared-ineligible-for-presidency/ |access-date=December 20, 2023|archive-date=November 15, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231115234011/https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2023/09/01/federal-judge-dismisses-florida-lawsuit-seeking-to-have-trump-declared-ineligible-for-presidency/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
By the end of October, [[John Anthony Castro]], a candidate for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, had sued Trump based on the 14th Amendment in at least 26 federal district courts across the country.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Fisher |first1=Damien |date=October 22, 2023 |title=The $600 Man Trying To Bring Down Trump |work=New Hampshire Journal|url=https://nhjournal.com/the-600-man-trying-to-bring-down-trump |access-date=October 24, 2023|archive-date=October 23, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231023023335/https://nhjournal.com/the-600-man-trying-to-bring-down-trump/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Benson |first1=Samuel |date=September 7, 2023|title=New Utah lawsuit attempts to bar Trump from 2024 election ballot |work=[[Deseret News]] |url=https://www.deseret.com/2023/9/7/23862928/utah-lawsuit-bar-trump-2024-election-ballot-14th-amendment |access-date=October 24, 2023|archive-url=https://archive.today/20230909044601/https://www.deseret.com/2023/9/7/23862928/utah-lawsuit-bar-trump-2024-election-ballot-14th-amendment |archive-date=September 9, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Ross|first1=Keaton|date=September 13, 2023 |title=Lawsuit seeks to block Trump from the ballot in Oklahoma |work=[[Norman Transcript]]|url=https://www.normantranscript.com/news/lawsuit-seeks-to-block-trump-from-the-ballot-in-oklahoma/article_e2c0fab0-51b5-11ee-b6f8-3f1640ff9d62.html |access-date=October 24, 2023|archive-url=https://archive.today/20230913223013/https://www.normantranscript.com/news/lawsuit-seeks-to-block-trump-from-the-ballot-in-oklahoma/article_e2c0fab0-51b5-11ee-b6f8-3f1640ff9d62.html |archive-date=September 13, 2023 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Quinn |first1=Melissa |title=Trump's eligibility for the ballot is being challenged under the 14th Amendment. Here are the notable cases. |date=December 29, 2023|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-ballot-14th-amendment-section-3-2024-eligibility/ |website=CBS News |access-date=December 30, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=December 29, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231229230933/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-ballot-14th-amendment-section-3-2024-eligibility/ |url-status=live }}</ref> On October 2, 2023, the [[United States Supreme Court]] declined to hear Castro's appeal of a Florida federal court's dismissal of his case for lack of standing.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Cole |first1=Devan |date=October 2, 2023 |title=Supreme Court declines to consider longshot bid to disqualify Trump from running for president|language=en|work=[[CNN]]|url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/02/politics/donald-trump-fourteenth-amendment-ballot-case-supreme-court/index.html |access-date=October 2, 2023 |archive-date=October 2, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231002153730/https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/02/politics/donald-trump-fourteenth-amendment-ballot-case-supreme-court/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Kruzel|first1=John|date=October 2, 2023 |title=US Supreme Court rebuffs long-shot candidate's bid to disqualify Trump in 2024|language=en|work=[[Reuters]]|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-rebuffs-long-shot-candidates-bid-disqualify-trump-2024-2023-10-02/ |access-date=November 18, 2023 |archive-date=November 15, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231115220433/https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-rebuffs-long-shot-candidates-bid-disqualify-trump-2024-2023-10-02/ |url-status=live }}</ref> On October 30, Castro's lawsuit in the [[United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire|New Hampshire U.S. District Court]] was also dismissed for lack of standing. The New Hampshire court opined that even if Castro had standing, his claims would seem to be barred as a [[political question]].<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Landrigan |first1=Kevin |date=October 31, 2023|title=NH fed judge dismisses suit to knock Trump off ballot |language=en-US |work=[[New Hampshire Union Leader]]|url=https://news.yahoo.com/nh-fed-judge-dismisses-suit-035900442.html |access-date=November 18, 2023 |via=[[Yahoo News]] |archive-date=November 18, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231118045311/https://news.yahoo.com/nh-fed-judge-dismisses-suit-035900442.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Downey |first1=K. C.|date=October 30, 2023|title=Judge dismisses candidate's lawsuit to keep Trump off New Hampshire primary ballot|language=en|work=[[WMUR]]|url=https://www.wmur.com/article/new-hampshire-donald-trump-ballot-lawsuit-dismiss/45682757|access-date=November 18, 2023 |archive-date=November 18, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231118001727/https://www.wmur.com/article/new-hampshire-donald-trump-ballot-lawsuit-dismiss/45682757 |url-status=live }}</ref> In late November, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit|U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals]] affirmed the dismissal for lack of standing.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Cleaves |first1=Ashley |date=December 1, 2023|title=1st Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Trump Eligibility Challenge in New Hampshire |language=en |work=Democracy Docket|url=https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/1st-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-trump-eligibility-challenge-in-new-hampshire/ |access-date=December 20, 2023 |archive-date=December 3, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231203195645/https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/1st-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-trump-eligibility-challenge-in-new-hampshire/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Castro has also had federal lawsuits dismissed for lack of standing in Rhode Island,<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Swoyer |first1=Alex |date=November 27, 2023 |title=Trump wins another ballot challenge, federal judge dismisses Rhode Island case |language=en |work=The Washington Times|url=https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/nov/27/trump-wins-another-ballot-challenge-federal-judge-/ |access-date=December 10, 2023|archive-date=December 10, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231210032145/https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/nov/27/trump-wins-another-ballot-challenge-federal-judge-/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Mulvaney |first1=Katie |date=November 27, 2023 |title=Suit by Republican challenger to keep Trump off the ballot in RI dismissed. What comes next? |language=en |work=Providence Journal|url=https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/politics/2023/11/27/trump-keeps-right-to-be-on-presidential-ballot-in-ri/71720185007/ |access-date=December 10, 2023 |archive-date=December 10, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231210032145/https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/politics/2023/11/27/trump-keeps-right-to-be-on-presidential-ballot-in-ri/71720185007/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Arizona<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Lebowitz |first1=Megan |date=December 6, 2023|title=Federal judge rejects bid to keep Trump off the ballot in Arizona |language=en |work=NBC News|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/federal-judge-rejects-bid-keep-trump-ballot-arizona-rcna128239 |access-date=December 10, 2023 |archive-date=December 10, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231210025557/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/federal-judge-rejects-bid-keep-trump-ballot-arizona-rcna128239 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Cleaves|first1=Ashley|date=December 5, 2023 |title=Federal Judge Dismisses Trump Eligibility Challenge in Arizona |language=en |work=Democracy Docket|url=https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/federal-judge-dismisses-trump-eligibility-challenge-in-arizona/ |access-date=December 10, 2023 |archive-date=December 10, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231210025557/https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/federal-judge-dismisses-trump-eligibility-challenge-in-arizona/ |url-status=live }}</ref> and West Virginia,<ref name="Dickerson">{{Cite news |last1=Dickerson |first1=Chris |date=December 21, 2023 |title=Federal judge dismisses attempt to keep Trump off West Virginia ballot|url=https://wvrecord.com/stories/653224464-federal-judge-dismisses-attempt-to-keep-trump-off-west-virginia-ballot |website=West Virginia Record |access-date=December 23, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=December 23, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231223115251/https://wvrecord.com/stories/653224464-federal-judge-dismisses-attempt-to-keep-trump-off-west-virginia-ballot |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=McElhinny|first1=Brad |date=December 22, 2023 |title=Lawsuit to boot Trump off West Virginia ballots is dismissed because plaintiff lacks standing|url=https://wvmetronews.com/2023/12/22/lawsuit-to-boot-trump-off-west-virginia-ballots-is-dismissed-because-plaintiff-lacks-standing/ |website=MetroNews |access-date=December 23, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=December 23, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231223115251/https://wvmetronews.com/2023/12/22/lawsuit-to-boot-trump-off-west-virginia-ballots-is-dismissed-because-plaintiff-lacks-standing/ |url-status=live }}</ref> and has voluntarily dismissed several others.<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Sullivan|first1=Becky |date=December 21, 2023 |title=What's next after Colorado? Here's where other challenges to Trump's candidacy stand|url=https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection |website=NPR |access-date=December 23, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=December 22, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231222190817/https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Dickerson"/> By early January 2024, Castro had filed a second lawsuit in New Hampshire,<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Mitropoulos |first1=Arielle |date=January 2, 2024|title=Little-known candidate files another lawsuit to block Trump from New Hampshire ballot |url=https://www.wmur.com/article/lawsuit-donald-trump-new-hampshire-ballot-010224/46269696 |website=WMUR |access-date=January 5, 2024|language=en |archive-date=January 5, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240105050226/https://www.wmur.com/article/lawsuit-donald-trump-new-hampshire-ballot-010224/46269696 |url-status=live }}</ref> and appealed the district court rulings in Florida,<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Winger |first1=Richard |date=August 12, 2023 |title=John Anthony Castro Files Brief in Eleventh Circuit in Florida Trump Ballot Access Case |url=https://ballot-access.org/2023/10/12/john-anthony-castro-files-brief-in-eleventh-circuit-in-florida-trump-ballot-access-case/ |website=Ballot Access News |access-date=January 5, 2024 |language=en |archive-date=January 7, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240107020838/https://ballot-access.org/2023/10/12/john-anthony-castro-files-brief-in-eleventh-circuit-in-florida-trump-ballot-access-case/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Arizona<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Stanton|first1=Andrew|date=January 2, 2024 |title=Donald Trump's Biggest Ballot Case Hasn't Happened Yet |url=https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-ballot-challenge-john-anthony-castro-1857069 |website=Newsweek |access-date=January 5, 2024 |language=en |archive-date=January 5, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240105001243/https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-ballot-challenge-john-anthony-castro-1857069 |url-status=live }}</ref> and West Virginia,<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Adams|first1=Steven Allen |date=December 28, 2023 |title=Dismissal of lawsuit to keep Trump off W.Va. ballot appealed |url=https://www.mariettatimes.com/news/local-news/2023/12/dismissal-of-lawsuit-to-keep-trump-off-w-va-ballot-appealed/ |website=The Marietta Times |access-date=January 5, 2024 |language=en |archive-date=December 28, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231228075245/https://www.mariettatimes.com/news/local-news/2023/12/dismissal-of-lawsuit-to-keep-trump-off-w-va-ballot-appealed/ |url-status=live }}</ref> but had a case dismissed in Nevada.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Robertson |first=Nick |date=January 9, 2024 |title=Judge rejects Trump 14th Amendment claim in Nevada by GOP political competitor |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4398648-judge-rejects-trump-14th-amendment-claim-nevada/ |website=The Hill |access-date=January 21, 2024 |language=en}}</ref> By the end of January, Castro had also had cases dismissed in New Mexico<ref>{{Cite news |last=Rodriguez |first=Vince |date=January 12, 2024 |title=Judge dismisses lawsuit seeking to remove Donald Trump from ballot in New Mexico |url=https://www.koat.com/article/donald-trump-on-election-ballot-new-mexico/46366890 |website=KOAT7 |access-date=February 5, 2024 |language=en}}</ref> and Alaska,<ref>{{Cite news |last=Winger |first=Richard |date=January 29, 2024 |title=U.S. District Court in Alaska Dismisses Anti-Trump Ballot Access Case |url=https://ballot-access.org/2024/01/29/u-s-district-court-in-alaska-dismisses-anti-trump-ballot-access-case/ |access-date=January 31, 2024 |language=en}}</ref> but had appealed the ruling in New Mexico.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Wyland |first=Scott |date=January 13, 2024 |title=Judge rejects lawsuit to keep Trump off New Mexico ballot |url=https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/judge-rejects-lawsuit-to-keep-trump-off-new-mexico-ballot/article_5b908044-b24d-11ee-8a57-fb15f989cfb3.html |website=Santa Fe New Mexican |access-date=February 5, 2024 |language=en}}</ref>
On October 20, 2023, the [[United States District Court for the Central District of California|Central California U.S. District Court]] dismissed for lack of standing a lawsuit seeking to disqualify Trump via section 3 of the 14th Amendment.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Winger |first=Richard |date=January 4, 2024 |title=U.S. District Court in California Keeps Donald Trump on the Republican Presidential Primary Ballot |url=https://ballot-access.org/2024/01/04/u-s-district-court-in-california-keeps-donald-trump-on-the-republican-presidential-primary-ballot/ |website=Ballot Access News |access-date=January 26, 2024 |language=en}}</ref> On November 29, 2023, the [[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington|Eastern Washington U.S. District Court]] dismissed a claim against Trump under section 3 of the 14th Amendment that a Spokane Valley resident had filed too early for subject matter jurisdiction to apply.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Sanford |first1=Nate |date=November 30, 2023 |title=Spokane judge dismisses lawsuit attempting to remove Trump from Washington's 2024 ballot|language=en|work=Inlander|url=https://www.inlander.com/news/spokane-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-attempting-to-remove-trump-from-washingtons-2024-ballot-27051864 |access-date=December 10, 2023 |archive-date=December 9, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231209222311/https://www.inlander.com/news/spokane-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-attempting-to-remove-trump-from-washingtons-2024-ballot-27051864 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Murray|first1=Isabella |date=December 9, 2023 |title=Why are the 14th Amendment lawsuits seeking to bar Trump failing? |language=en |work=ABC News|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/14th-amendment-lawsuits-seeking-bar-trump-failing/story?id=105391248 |access-date=October 12, 2023 |archive-date=December 9, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231209011811/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/14th-amendment-lawsuits-seeking-bar-trump-failing/story?id=105391248 |url-status=live }}</ref> On December 29, 2023, the [[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia|Eastern Virginia U.S. District Court]] dismissed for lack of standing another lawsuit seeking to disqualify Trump via section 3 of the 14th Amendment.<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Anderson|first1=Natalie |date=January 5, 2024 |title=Why efforts to remove Trump from Virginia's primary ballot failed |url=https://www.pilotonline.com/2024/01/05/why-efforts-to-remove-trump-from-virginias-primary-ballot-failed/ |website=The Virginian-Pilot |access-date=January 5, 2024 |language=en |archive-date=January 6, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240106074514/https://www.pilotonline.com/2024/01/05/why-efforts-to-remove-trump-from-virginias-primary-ballot-failed/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
=== Colorado ===
{{Main|Trump v. Anderson|l1=''Trump v. Anderson''}}
{{See also|2024 United States presidential election in Colorado|2024 Colorado Republican presidential primary}}
On November 17, the [[Colorado District Court]], a state trial court, dismissed [[2024 United States presidential election in Colorado#14th Amendment lawsuit|a lawsuit]] brought by a bipartisan group of Colorado voters that sought to bar Trump from the state's presidential primaries and general election.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Wallace |first1=Sarah B. |title=Case No.: 2023CV32577 Division: 209 FINAL ORDER|url=https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf |access-date=November 27, 2023 |date=November 17, 2023 |website=Colorado Judicial Branch |archive-date=November 18, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231118203814/https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> This court was the first to rule on the merits of whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applied to Trump.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Astor |first1=Maggie |date=November 17, 2023 |title=Colorado Judge Keeps Trump on Ballot but Finds He 'Engaged in Insurrection'|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/17/us/politics/colorado-trump-14th-amendment.html |access-date=December 20, 2023 |archive-date=December 9, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231209112759/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/17/us/politics/colorado-trump-14th-amendment.html |url-status=live }}</ref> It ruled that the January 6 Capitol attack was an "insurrection" within the meaning of Section 3, and that Trump did "engage" in insurrection by inciting the attack (outside of the protections of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]]), but that Section 3 did not apply to Trump because the President of the United States is not an [[Officer of the United States]] and thus Trump had not "previously taken an oath ... as an officer of the United States," as required by Section 3.<ref name="BBC231118" /><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Cohen|first1=Marshall |date=November 18, 2023|title=Colorado judge keeps Trump on 2024 primary ballot as latest 14th Amendment case falters|language=en|work=[[CNN]]|url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment-insurrection/index.html|access-date=November 18, 2023 |archive-date=November 18, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231118001227/https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment-insurrection/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The court ordered the [[Colorado Secretary of State]] to place Trump's name on the state's presidential primary ballot.<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Richards|first1=Zoë|last2=Grumbach|first2=Gary |date=November 18, 2023 |title=Colorado judge rejects bid to keep Trump off the state's 2024 ballot |language=en |work=[[NBC News]]|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/colorado-judge-rejects-bid-keep-trump-2024-ballot-rcna125451 |access-date=November 18, 2023|archive-date=November 18, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231118001910/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/colorado-judge-rejects-bid-keep-trump-2024-ballot-rcna125451 |url-status=live }}</ref>
The plaintiffs appealed<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Riccardi |first1=Nicholas |date=November 22, 2023 |title=Colorado Supreme Court will hear appeal of ruling that Trump can stay on ballot despite insurrection|language=en |work=[[Associated Press]]|url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-appeal-colorado-7436a07c9d0259bba9a13136c541cf2c |access-date=November 24, 2023 |archive-date=November 24, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231124020230/https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-appeal-colorado-7436a07c9d0259bba9a13136c541cf2c |url-status=live }}</ref> and on December 19, the [[Colorado Supreme Court]] reversed the Colorado District Court decision that the President is not an Officer of the United States while upholding the District Court's holding that Trump had engaged in insurrection, and ordered that Trump be removed from the [[2024 Colorado Republican presidential primary]] ballot.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Astor |first1=Maggie |title=Trump Ballot Ruling – Trump Is Disqualified From the 2024 Ballot, Colorado Supreme Court Rules – Former President Donald J. Trump's campaign said it planned to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.|url=https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/12/19/us/trump-colorado-ballot-news |date=December 19, 2023 |work=[[The New York Times]]|url-status=live|archive-url=https://archive.today/20231220012941/https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/12/19/us/trump-colorado-ballot-news |archive-date=December 20, 2023 |access-date=December 19, 2023 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Cohen|first1=Marshall |date=December 19, 2023|title=Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from 2024 ballot based on 14th Amendment's 'insurrectionist ban'|publisher=CNN|url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics/trump-colorado-supreme-court-14th-amendment/index.html |access-date=December 19, 2023 |archive-date=December 19, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231219232917/https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics/trump-colorado-supreme-court-14th-amendment/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Grumbach |first1=Gary |last2=Gregorian |first2=Dareh |date=December 19, 2023 |title=Colorado Supreme Court kicks Trump off the state's 2024 ballot for violating the U.S. Constitution |publisher=NBC News|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/colorado-supreme-court-kicks-trump-states-2024-ballot-violating-us-con-rcna130484 |access-date=December 19, 2023 |archive-date=December 19, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231219232506/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/colorado-supreme-court-kicks-trump-states-2024-ballot-violating-us-con-rcna130484 |url-status=live }}</ref> Both the Colorado Republican Party and Trump appealed.<ref>{{Cite news| last1=Kruzel |first1=John |date=December 28, 2023 |title=Republicans appeal Trump Colorado ballot disqualification to US Supreme Court - attorney|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republicans-appeal-trump-colorado-ballot-disqualification-us-supreme-court-2023-12-28/ |website=Reuters |access-date=December 28, 2023 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Riccardi |first1=Nicholas |date=December 27, 2023|title=Colorado Republicans appeal decision disqualifying Donald Trump from 2024 ballot to the Supreme Court|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2023/12/27/colorado-gop-appeals-decision-disqualifying-donald-trump-2024/72043874007/ |website=USA Today|access-date=December 28, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=December 28, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231228022556/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2023/12/27/colorado-gop-appeals-decision-disqualifying-donald-trump-2024/72043874007/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Marley |first1=Patrick |last2=Marrimow |first2=Ann E. |date=January 3, 2024 |title=Trump asks Supreme Court to keep his name on Colorado ballot |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/03/trump-colorado-ballot-appeal/ |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=January 4, 2024 |language=en |archive-date=January 4, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240104072518/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/03/trump-colorado-ballot-appeal/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The Supreme Court of the United States heard the appeal on February 8, 2024.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3">{{Cite web |date=January 5, 2024 |title=Trump v. Anderson - Certiorari Granted |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/010524zr2_886b.pdf |archive-url=https://archive.today/20240105223555/https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/010524zr2_886b.pdf |archive-date=January 5, 2024 |access-date=January 5, 2024 |website=Supreme Court of the United States}}</ref>
The Colorado Supreme Court distinguished between the laws of Colorado and [[#Michigan|of Michigan]], observing that there is a statutory and constitutional role for the Colorado courts to assess the qualifications of a primary election candidate, and to order the secretary of state to exclude unqualified persons, even though no analogous responsibilities were identified by a contemporaneous Michigan Court of Appeals ruling relating to Trump.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf |title=Order Affirmed in Part and Reversed in Part |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231219232322/https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf |archive-date=December 19, 2023 |work=Anderson v. Griswold |year=2023 }}</ref>{{rp|at=decision, pp. 48–49}}
Asked whether Trump is an insurrectionist, [[President Biden]] responded "... whether the 14th Amendment applies, I'll let the court make that decision. But he certainly supported an insurrection."<ref>{{Cite news |date=December 20, 2023 |title=Remarks by President Biden After Air Force One Arrival | Milwaukee, WI |website=The White House |language=en |url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/12/20/remarks-by-president-biden-after-air-force-one-arrival-milwaukee-wi/ |access-date=January 9, 2024 |archive-date=January 9, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240109042743/https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/12/20/remarks-by-president-biden-after-air-force-one-arrival-milwaukee-wi/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
=== Illinois ===
{{distinguish|text=''[[Trump v. Anderson]]'', the US Supreme Court case addressing the same eligibility issue}}
On January 4, 2024, a petition challenging Trump's eligibility under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for both the [[2024 Illinois Republican presidential primary|primary]] and [[2024 United States presidential election in Illinois|general election]] ballots was filed with the [[Illinois State Board of Elections]] by voters Steven Daniel Anderson, Charles J. Holley, Jack L Hickman, Ralph E Cintron, and Darryl P. Baker.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Ramos |first1=Andrew |last2=Dodge |first2=John |date=January 4, 2024 |title=Voters seek to have Donald Trump removed from Illinois Primary ballot |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/voters-seek-to-have-donald-trump-removed-from-illinois-primary-ballot/ |publisher=[[WBBM-TV|WBBM]] |access-date=January 5, 2024 |language=en |archive-date=January 4, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240104235323/https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/voters-seek-to-have-donald-trump-removed-from-illinois-primary-ballot/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=McKinney|first1=Dave|date=January 4, 2024|title=Trump's candidacy is challenged by a group of Illinois residents |work=[[WBEZ]]|url=https://www.wbez.org/stories/trumps-candidacy-is-challenged-by-a-group-of-illinois-residents/6fd7f8c7-36cb-47bd-b278-f42333d3c0e5|access-date=January 4, 2024|archive-date=January 4, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240104160210/https://www.wbez.org/stories/trumps-candidacy-is-challenged-by-a-group-of-illinois-residents/6fd7f8c7-36cb-47bd-b278-f42333d3c0e5|url-status=live}}</ref> On January 26, a hearing was held.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cohen |first=Marshall |date=January 26, 2024 |title=Illinois election board hears objection to Trump candidacy based on January 6 insurrection |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/26/politics/illinois-14th-amendment-trump-january-6/index.html |website=CNN |access-date=January 27, 2024 |language=en}}</ref> The hearing officer recommended that the case be decided in a court of law, rather than by the Board of Elections, but that if the Board were to decide the case it should find that Trump had engaged in insurrection and should be excluded from the Illinois primary ballot.<ref>{{Cite news |last=McKinney |first=Dave |date=January 28, 2024 |title=Trump’s candidacy on the Illinois ballot should be decided by the courts, an elections board hearing officer says | url=https://www.wbez.org/stories/trumps-candidacy-on-the-illinois-ballot-should-be-decided-by-the-courts-hearing-officer-says/e9af3a79-7e96-4429-8bf0-282833888bb2 |website=WBEZ Chicago |access-date=January 29, 2024 |language=en}}</ref> The board unanimously ruled on January 30 to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, leaving Trump on the ballot.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cohen |first=Marshall |date=January 30, 2024 |title=Bipartisan Illinois election board dismisses 14th Amendment case against Trump |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/30/politics/donald-trump-illinois-14th-amendment/index.html |access-date=January 31, 2024 |language=en}}</ref> That same day, the plaintiffs appealed to the [[Circuit Court of Cook County|Illinois circuit court in Cook County]],<ref>{{Cite news |last=Vinicky |first=Amanda |date=January 31, 2024 |title=Effort to Remove Donald Trump From the Illinois Primary Ballot Continues in State Court |url=https://news.wttw.com/2024/01/31/effort-remove-donald-trump-illinois-primary-ballot-continues-state-court |website=WTTW News |access-date=February 2, 2024 |language=en}}</ref> under the case name ''Anderson v. Trump''.
The Circuit Court denied a motion from the Trump campaign (which requested a postponement until after the announcement of U.S. Supreme Court decision on the similar case in Colorado), and instead set hearing on the objector's claims against Trump for February 16, 2024.<ref>{{cite news|title=Trump's Illinois ballot challenge to move forward |first=Peter |last=Hancock |url=https://www.nprillinois.org/illinois/2024-02-07/trumps-illinois-ballot-challenge-to-move-forward |work=NPR-Illinois (UIS 91.9) |date=February 7, 2024}}</ref> After the hearing, in a lengthy written order on February 28, the Circuit Court ordered Trump removed from Illinois primary ballots, with a stay of the order for an appeal to be taken, or should the U.S. Supreme Court issue an inconsistent opinion. The Circuit Court agreed that as a matter of fact and law, given the submitted record, Trump is disqualified under the 14th Amendment insurrection clause, and therefore the Illinois affidavit required from Trump concerning his legal qualification for office was not and cannot be truthfully given.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/28/us/trump-removal-illinois-primary-ballot.html |title=Judge Orders Trump Removed From Illinois Primary Ballots |date=February 28, 2024 |last=Smith |first=Mitch |work=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=February 28, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Trump Ruling (PDF) |url=https://www.scribd.com/document/709350212/Trump-Ruling |access-date=February 29, 2024 |website=Scribd |language=en}}</ref> Trump has appealed.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cohen |first=Marshall |date=February 29, 2024 |title=Trump appeals judge’s decision that disqualified him from Illinois ballots |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/29/politics/trump-appeals-illinois-decision/index.html |website=CNN |access-date=February 29, 2024 |language=en}}</ref>
=== Michigan ===
In the Michigan case, ''Trump v. Benson'',{{efn|''Trump v. Benson'' (2023), 23-000151-MZ}} on November 14, Judge James Robert Redford of the [[Michigan Court of Claims]], a specialized [[trial court]] for claims against the state, dismissed a lawsuit that sought to bar Trump from the [[2024 Michigan Republican presidential nominating contests|Michigan Republican primary and caucuses]], ruling that neither the state courts nor the [[Michigan Secretary of State]] had the authority to determine whether Trump was disqualified by the 14th Amendment, because disqualification was a political question to be decided by Congress, and if Congress disqualifies Trump, the [[Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution|20th Amendment]] provides for a remedy (the vice-president assuming the presidency).<ref name="Cohen" /><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Williams |first1=Corey |last2=Riccardi |first2=Nicholas |date=November 14, 2023|title=Michigan judge says Trump can stay on primary ballot, rejecting challenge under insurrection clause |language=en |work=[[Associated Press]] |url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-ballot-michigan-b2a870f98a60dffbe4c9566cfe97457c |access-date=November 14, 2023 |archive-date=November 14, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231114220046/https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-ballot-michigan-b2a870f98a60dffbe4c9566cfe97457c |url-status=live }}</ref> He ruled that Trump's eligibility to appear on the Republican primary ballot "presents a political question that is nonjusticiable at the present time", and found that the general election question "is not ripe for adjudication at this time".<ref>{{cite web |title=Trump v. Benson, 23-000151-MZ, Michigan Court of Claims |url=https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/ab30b95f96a68053/ce7b0cfb-full.pdf |via=The New York Times |access-date=December 20, 2023 |archive-date=November 15, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231115111938/https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/ab30b95f96a68053/ce7b0cfb-full.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>
The plaintiffs appealed.<ref name="Riccardi-Michigan">{{Cite news |last1=Riccardi |first1=Nicholas |date=November 18, 2023 |title=Colorado judge finds Trump engaged in insurrection, but rejects constitutional ballot challenge|language=en|work=[[Associated Press]]|url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055 |access-date=November 18, 2023 |archive-date=November 18, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231118003915/https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Robertson">{{cite news|last1=Robertson|first1=Nick |date=November 17, 2023 |title=Activists take Trump 14th Amendment fight to Michigan Supreme Court |language=en |work=The Hill|url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4315316-activists-trump-14th-amendment-fight-michigan-supreme-court/ |access-date=December 20, 2023 |archive-date=December 3, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231203114631/https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4315316-activists-trump-14th-amendment-fight-michigan-supreme-court/ |url-status=live }}</ref> On December 14, the [[Michigan Court of Appeals]] rejected their appeal, ruling that political parties could decide eligibility for the primary ballot and that the issue of eligibility for the general election ballot was not yet ripe.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Oosting |first1=Jonathan |date=December 14, 2023 |title=Michigan appeals court: Trump 'must' be on presidential primary ballot|language=en|website=Bridge Michigan|url=https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/michigan-appeals-court-trump-must-be-presidential-primary-ballot |access-date=December 16, 2023 |archive-date=December 15, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231215134032/https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/michigan-appeals-court-trump-must-be-presidential-primary-ballot |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Murray|first1=Isabella|date=December 15, 2023 |title=Michigan Court of Appeals rules Trump can remain on 2024 GOP primary ballot |language=en |website=ABC News|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michigan-court-appeals-rules-trump-remain-2024-ballot/story?id=105675899 |access-date=December 16, 2023 |archive-date=December 16, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231216004002/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michigan-court-appeals-rules-trump-remain-2024-ballot/story?id=105675899 |url-status=live }}</ref> The plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the [[Michigan Supreme Court]].<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Pluta |first1=Rick |date=December 19, 2023 |title=Michigan Supreme Court filing seeks to block Trump from state primary ballot|url=https://www.wkar.org/2023-12-19/michigan-supreme-court-filing-seeks-to-block-trump-from-state-primary-ballot |website=WKAR |access-date=December 20, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=December 19, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231219230622/https://www.wkar.org/2023-12-19/michigan-supreme-court-filing-seeks-to-block-trump-from-state-primary-ballot |url-status=live }}</ref>
On December 27, the Michigan Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, thus keeping him on the ballot.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Williams|first1=Corey|last2=Riccardi|first2=Nicholas|date=December 27, 2023|title=Michigan Supreme Court will keep Trump on 2024 ballot|publisher=Associated Press|url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-ballot-michigan-colorado-b5a5d9ffa75efa63ab4780b04329e2a2|access-date=December 27, 2023|archive-date=December 27, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231227143109/https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-ballot-michigan-colorado-b5a5d9ffa75efa63ab4780b04329e2a2|url-status=live}}</ref>
=== Minnesota ===
On November 8, the [[Minnesota Supreme Court]], the state's highest court, dismissed a lawsuit brought by a bipartisan group of Minnesota voters that sought to bar Trump from the [[2024 Minnesota Republican presidential primary|Minnesota Republican primary]], ruling that no Minnesota state law prohibits political parties from listing ineligible candidates on their primary ballots. The court did not address whether the [[January 6 United States Capitol attack]] was an "insurrection," and whether Trump "engaged" in it, within the meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The court ruled that the challengers could file a new lawsuit seeking to bar Trump from the [[2024 United States presidential election in Minnesota|Minnesota general election ballot]] if he is nominated as the Republican candidate for the general election.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Karnowski |first1=Steve |last2=Riccardi|first2=Nicholas|date=November 8, 2023 |title=Minnesota Supreme Court dismisses 'insurrection clause' challenge and allows Trump on primary ballot |language=en |work=[[Associated Press]]|url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-election-president-f6b72c94bb351c1b870d4884e54f6a75|access-date=November 18, 2023 |archive-date=November 18, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231118005607/https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-election-president-f6b72c94bb351c1b870d4884e54f6a75 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Cohen |first1=Marshall |date=November 8, 2023 |title=Minnesota Supreme Court won't remove Trump from GOP primary ballot in 14th Amendment challenge|language=en|work=[[CNN]]|url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/08/politics/minnesota-14th-amendment-trump/index.html |access-date=November 9, 2023 |archive-date=November 9, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231109000327/https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/08/politics/minnesota-14th-amendment-trump/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
=== Oregon ===
In early December 2023, an advocacy group filed a lawsuit with the [[Oregon Supreme Court]] to remove Trump from the [[2024 Oregon Republican presidential primary|Oregon Republican primary]] ballot.<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Shumway|first1=Julia |date=December 6, 2023 |title=Group sues Oregon Secretary of State Griffin-Valade to keep Trump off ballot |language=en |work=Oregon Capital Chronicle|url=https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2023/12/06/group-sues-oregon-secretary-of-state-griffin-valade-to-keep-trump-off-ballot/ |access-date=December 7, 2023 |archive-date=December 7, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231207015757/https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2023/12/06/group-sues-oregon-secretary-of-state-griffin-valade-to-keep-trump-off-ballot/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Cohen |first1=Michael |date=December 6, 2023 |title=Another 14th Amendment challenge pops up in Oregon |language=en |work=[[CNN]] |url=https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/colorado-trump-14th-amendment-12-06-23/h_7638191da48331ce65087e2c93db15e7 |access-date=December 7, 2023 |archive-date=December 7, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231207180428/https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/colorado-trump-14th-amendment-12-06-23/h_7638191da48331ce65087e2c93db15e7 |url-status=live }}</ref> The group sued [[Oregon Secretary of State]] [[LaVonne Griffin-Valade]] after she said on November 30 that she did not have authority over who appears on the ballot for a primary election.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Sources |first1=Central Oregon Daily News |date=December 29, 2023|title=2 states have banned Trump from ballot. Where does Oregon stand?|url=https://centraloregondaily.com/donald-trump-oregon-primary-ballot-status/ |access-date=December 29, 2023 |website=Central Oregon Daily |language=en-US|archive-date=December 29, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231229173928/https://centraloregondaily.com/donald-trump-oregon-primary-ballot-status/ |url-status=live }}</ref> On January 12, 2024, the Oregon Supreme Court declined to hear the case and did not rule on its merits, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's ongoing consideration of ''Trump v. Anderson''.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Cohen |first=Marshall |date=January 12, 2024 |title=Oregon Supreme Court won't remove Trump from ballot for now, says it's waiting on SCOTUS |url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/12/politics/oregon-supreme-court-trump-ballot-2024/index.html |access-date=January 12, 2024 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref>
=== Other states ===
In August 2023, a lawsuit seeking to bar Trump from the [[2024 California Republican presidential primary|California Republican primary]] ballot under the 14th amendment was filed in [[Alameda County Superior Court]], and, in October 2023, another was filed in [[Los Angeles County Superior Court]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Woolfolk |first=John |date=December 23, 2023| title=Can California really keep Trump off the ballot? |url=https://www.timesheraldonline.com/2023/12/23/can-california-really-keep-trump-off-the-ballot-2/ |website=Time-Herald |access-date=March 1, 2024 |language=en}}</ref>
On November 1, 2023, a lawsuit aiming to bar Trump and [[Cynthia Lummis]] from the ballot was filed in the [[Wyoming District Courts|Wyoming District Court]] in [[Albany County, Wyoming|Albany County]].<ref>{{Cite news |last1=McFarland |first1=Clair |date=December 20, 2023 |title=Wyoming Man Suing To Keep Trump Off Ballot OK With Former President Joining Lawsuit |url=https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/12/19/wyoming-man-suing-to-keep-trump-off-ballot-ok-with-former-president-joining-lawsuit/ |website=Cowboy State Daily |access-date=January 5, 2024 |language=en |archive-date=January 5, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240105120935/https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/12/19/wyoming-man-suing-to-keep-trump-off-ballot-ok-with-former-president-joining-lawsuit/ |url-status=live }}</ref> On January 4, 2024, it was dismissed.<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Bickerton|first1=James|date=January 5, 2024 |title=Judge Shuts Down Attempt to Kick Donald Trump Off Ballot |url=https://www.newsweek.com/judge-shuts-down-attempt-kick-donald-trump-off-ballot-1858087 |website=Newsweek|access-date=January 6, 2024 |language=en |archive-date=January 5, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240105230357/https://www.newsweek.com/judge-shuts-down-attempt-kick-donald-trump-off-ballot-1858087 |url-status=live }}</ref> The plaintiff has appealed.<ref>{{Cite news |last=McFarland |first=Clair |date=January 19, 2024 |title=Laramie Attorney Appeals To Wyoming Supreme Court To Keep Trump Off Ballot |url=https://cowboystatedaily.com/2024/01/18/laramie-attorney-appeals-to-wyoming-supreme-court-to-keep-trump-off-ballot/ |website=Cowboy News Daily |access-date=January 26, 2024 |language=en}}</ref>
On December 22, a lawsuit seeking to bar Trump from the [[2024 Louisiana Republican presidential primary|Louisiana Republican primary]] ballot was filed in the 19th Judicial District Court of that state.<ref>{{Cite news |date=December 27, 2023 |last1=Daly |first1=Ken |last2=Joseph |first2=Chris |title=Chalmette woman files suit seeking to remove Trump from Louisiana ballot |url=https://www.fox8live.com/2023/12/27/chalmette-woman-files-suit-seeking-remove-trump-louisiana-ballot/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240103235129/https://www.fox8live.com/2023/12/27/chalmette-woman-files-suit-seeking-remove-trump-louisiana-ballot/ |archive-date=January 3, 2024 |access-date=January 5, 2024 |website=Fox8 |language=en}}</ref> On January 5, 2024, it was withdrawn.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Winger |first=Richard |date=January 18, 2024 |title=Louisiana Anti-Trump Ballot Access Lawsuit Dropped |url=https://ballot-access.org/2024/01/18/louisiana-anti-trump-ballot-access-dropped/ |website=Ballot Access News |access-date=January 31, 2024 |language=en}}</ref>
In late December 2023, Kirk Bangstad, a local [[brewery]] owner, filed a complaint with the [[Wisconsin Elections Commission]] to remove Trump from the [[2024 Wisconsin Republican presidential primary|primary]] and [[2024 United States presidential election in Wisconsin|general election ballots in Wisconsin]], which dismissed the complaint immediately by recusing itself.<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Gunn|first1=Erik|date=December 28, 2023 |title=Brewery owner, political fundraiser says he'll sue to block Trump from Wisconsin's 2024 ballot|url=https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2023/12/28/brewery-owner-political-fundraiser-says-hell-sue-to-block-trump-from-wisconsins-2024-ballot/ |website=Wisconsin Examiner|access-date=December 30, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=December 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231230104947/https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2023/12/28/brewery-owner-political-fundraiser-says-hell-sue-to-block-trump-from-wisconsins-2024-ballot/|url-status=live }}</ref> On January 5, Bangstad filed a related lawsuit in the [[Wisconsin Circuit Court]] in [[Dane County]].<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Cadigan |first1=Benjamin |last2=The Associated Press |date=January 5, 2024 |title=Lawsuit filed to bar Trump from Wisconsin ballot |url=https://www.weau.com/2024/01/05/lawsuit-filed-bar-trump-wisconsin-ballot/ |website=WEAU News |access-date=January 6, 2024|language=en|archive-date=January 6, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240106004300/https://www.weau.com/2024/01/05/lawsuit-filed-bar-trump-wisconsin-ballot/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
By early January 2024, a lawsuit aiming to bar Trump from the ballot under the 14th amendment was filed in the [[Circuit_court_(Florida)|Florida circuit court]] in [[Broward County, Florida|Broward County]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Man |first=Anthony |date=January 3, 2024 |title=South Florida activist asks judge to keep Trump off state’s election ballot |url=https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2024/01/03/south-florida-activist-asks-judge-to-keep-trump-off-states-election-ballot/ |website=South Florida SunSentinel |access-date=February 2, 2024 |language=en}}</ref>
In early January 2024, a pair of activists who'd had a case denied in federal court for lack of standing there filed a similar lawsuit in the [[Virginia circuit court]] in [[Richmond County, Virginia|Richmond County]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Childress |first=Kelsey |title=Virginia activists file lawsuit in state court to remove former President Trump from election ballot |url=https://wjla.com/news/local/virginia-activists-roy-perry-bey-carlos-howard-file-lawsuit-state-court-remove-former-president-donald-trump-election-ballot-2024 |access-date=February 18, 2024 |language=en}}</ref>
A lawsuit concerning Trump's inclusion on the [[2024 Washington Republican presidential primary|Washington state primary ballot]] was to be heard in [[List of Superior Court districts in Washington|Kitsap County Superior Court]] on January 16, 2024,<ref>{{cite news|publisher=[[KHQ-TV]]|location=Spokane|title= Lawsuit to remove Donald Trump from Washington presidential primary ballot to get hearing|author=Noah Corrin |date= January 12, 2024|url=https://www.khq.com/news/lawsuit-to-remove-donald-trump-from-washington-presidential-primary-ballot-to-get-hearing/article_6dbc72de-b1ab-11ee-bb83-bb8599195d29.html }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|agency=Associated Press|publisher=KING-TV|location=Seattle|title=Donald Trump's spot on Washington primary ballot to be decided in Kitsap County court|quote=The challenge contests the eligibility of Trump under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.|author=Alex Didion|date=January 16, 2024|url=https://www.king5.com/article/news/politics/donald-trump-washington-primary-ballot-kitsap-county-court/281-93ae6239-5e93-4d3e-9878-5ef2883afe82}}</ref> but the judge decided that the case should be moved to [[Thurston County, Washington|Thurston County]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Lotmore |first=Mario |date= January 17, 2024| title=Judge declines case to remove Trump from Washington state ballot |url=https://lynnwoodtimes.com/2024/01/16/trump-ballot-240116/ |website=Lynwood Times |access-date=January 17, 2024 |language=en}}</ref> Thurston County judge Mary Sue Wilson ruled on January 18 that Trump will stay on the Washington primary ballot.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4416366-trump-washington-state-ballot-challenge/|title=Trump will stay on ballot in Washington state|last=Nazzaro|first=Miranda|date=January 18, 2024|access-date=January 18, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Cornfield |first=Jerry |date=January 18, 2024 |title=Judge denies request to remove Trump from WA presidential primary ballot |url=https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2024/01/18/judge-denies-request-to-remove-trump-from-wa-presidential-primary-ballot/ |access-date=January 21, 2024 |language=en}}</ref>
== State election agencies ==
Some [[Secretary of state (U.S. state government)|secretaries of state]], who oversee elections in states, have begun preparing for potential challenges relating to whether Trump might be excluded from November 2024 ballots.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Hillyard |first1=Vaughn |date=August 29, 2023 |title=Secretaries of state get ready for possible challenges to Trump's ballot access |work=NBC News|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/secretaries-state-get-ready-possible-challenges-trumps-ballot-access-rcna102440 |access-date=December 20, 2023 |archive-date=December 3, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231203210642/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/secretaries-state-get-ready-possible-challenges-trumps-ballot-access-rcna102440 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Murray |first1=Isabella |last2=Demissie |first2=Hannah |date=September 1, 2023 |title=State election officials prepare for efforts to disqualify Trump under 14th Amendment |work=ABC News|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/state-election-officials-prepare-efforts-disqualify-trump-14th/story?id=102833123 |access-date=December 20, 2023 |archive-date=December 18, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231218081907/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/state-election-officials-prepare-efforts-disqualify-trump-14th/story?id=102833123 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Healy |first1=Jack |last2=Betts |first2=Anna |last3=Baker |first3=Mike |last4=Cowan |first4=Jill |date=December 30, 2023 |title=Would Keeping Trump Off the Ballot Hurt or Help Democracy? |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/30/us/trump-maine-democracy.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-trump-colorado-ballot |website=The New York Times |access-date=January 4, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=January 3, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240103234551/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/30/us/trump-maine-democracy.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-trump-colorado-ballot |url-status=live }}</ref> In September 2023, [[New Hampshire Secretary of State]] [[David Scanlan]] stated he would not invoke the 14th Amendment to remove Trump from the [[2024 New Hampshire Republican presidential primary|New Hampshire Republican primary]] ballot.<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Ramer|first1=Holly|last2=Riccardi |first2=Nicholas |date=September 13, 2023 |title=New Hampshire secretary of state won't block Trump from ballot in key presidential primary state |language=en |work=[[Associated Press]]|url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-new-hampshire-gop-ballot-block-consitution-insurrection-56f75ee5d650988d304308c5c912e9b2 |access-date=November 18, 2023 |archive-date=November 18, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231118013731/https://apnews.com/article/trump-new-hampshire-gop-ballot-block-consitution-insurrection-56f75ee5d650988d304308c5c912e9b2 |url-status=live }}</ref> In December 2023, [[Secretary of State of California|California Secretary of State]] [[Shirley Weber]] also declined to remove Trump from the [[2024 California Republican presidential primary|California Republican primary]] ballot.<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Mason|first1=Melanie|last2=Gardiner|first2=Dustin |date=December 29, 2023 |title='State of resistance' no more: California on sidelines of Trump ballot fight|url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/29/california-trump-ballot-fight-00133340 |website=Politico |access-date=December 31, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=December 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231230210610/https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/29/california-trump-ballot-fight-00133340 |url-status=live }}</ref>
=== Maine ===
{{See also|2024 United States presidential election in Maine|2024 Maine Republican presidential primary}}
In early December 2023, five Maine voters submitted three challenges to Maine Secretary of State [[Shenna Bellows]] contesting Trump's eligibility to be included on the ballot for Maine's 2024 Republican presidential preference primary.<ref name="me_hearing_pr">{{cite web|title=Hearing scheduled for challenges to Trump primary nomination petition|url=https://www.maine.gov/sos/news/2023/HearingScheduledChallengesTrumpPrimaryNominationPetition.html|website=Maine Department of the Secretary of State|access-date=January 2, 2024|date=December 11, 2023|archive-date=December 22, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231222175236/https://www.maine.gov/sos/news/2023/HearingScheduledChallengesTrumpPrimaryNominationPetition.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Bartow |first1=Adam |title=Multiple petitions seek to remove Donald Trump from Maine primary ballot|language=en|website=WMTV |url=https://www.wmtw.com/article/multiple-petitions-seek-remove-donald-trump-maine-presidential-primary-ballot/46093547 |access-date=December 20, 2023 |archive-date=December 18, 2023 |date=December 11, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231218054100/https://www.wmtw.com/article/multiple-petitions-seek-remove-donald-trump-maine-presidential-primary-ballot/46093547 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Montellaro|first1=Zach|date=December 15, 2023 |title=Maine's elections chief publicly grapples with whether 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump |language=en |website=Politico |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/15/maine-14th-amendment-trump-00132136|access-date=December 16, 2023 |archive-date=December 16, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231216000233/https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/15/maine-14th-amendment-trump-00132136 |url-status=live }}</ref> Two of these challenges asserted Trump was ineligible pursuant to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution, while a third challenge focused on the [[Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution|22nd Amendment]]'s ban on a "person . . . be[ing] elected to the office of the President more than twice" and claimed that Trump is ineligible to be elected president in 2024 because he claims to have already been elected to the presidency twice (in 2016 and 2020).<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Davis |first1=Emma |date=December 11, 2023 |title=Mainers challenge Donald Trump's election eligibility |language=en |website=News From The States|url=https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/mainers-challenge-donald-trumps-election-eligibility |access-date=December 16, 2023 |archive-date=December 15, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231215225347/https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/mainers-challenge-donald-trumps-election-eligibility |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Davis |first1=Emma |date=December 15, 2023 |title=Sec. of State Bellows hears arguments for and against challenges to Trump's ballot eligibility|language=en|website=Maine Morning Star|url=https://mainemorningstar.com/2023/12/15/sec-of-state-bellows-hears-arguments-in-hearing-on-challenges-to-trumps-ballot-eligibility/ |access-date=December 16, 2023 |archive-date=December 16, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231216034809/https://mainemorningstar.com/2023/12/15/sec-of-state-bellows-hears-arguments-in-hearing-on-challenges-to-trumps-ballot-eligibility/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Russell |first1=Jenna |date=December 22, 2023 |title=Maine's Secretary of State to Decide Whether Trump Can Stay on Ballot|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/us/maine-trump-ballot.html |website=The New York Times |access-date=December 26, 2023 |language=en|archive-date=December 25, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231225191819/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/us/maine-trump-ballot.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
On December 15, Bellows held a hearing on the challenges she was presented with.<ref name="me_hearing_pr" /><ref>{{cite web |title=Hearing Regarding Challenges to Trump Primary Nomination Petition |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvBkgW893g8 |website=Youtube |publisher=Maine Department of the Secretary of State |access-date=January 2, 2024 |date=December 15, 2023 |archive-date=January 1, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240101222130/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvBkgW893g8 |url-status=live }}</ref> On December 28, in a 34-page order, she ruled that Trump was ineligible to be listed on the Maine primary ballot pursuant to the 14th Amendment.<ref name="me_decision_pr">{{Cite web |title=Maine Secretary of State Decision in Challenge to Trump Presidential Primary Petitions|url=https://www.maine.gov/sos/news/2023/BellowsDecisionChallengeTrumpPrimaryPetitionsDec2023.html |access-date=December 29, 2023 |website=maine.gov |archive-date=December 29, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231229010745/https://www.maine.gov/sos/news/2023/BellowsDecisionChallengeTrumpPrimaryPetitionsDec2023.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Specifically, she found that the former president "used a false narrative of election fraud to inflame his supporters" and "engaged in insurrection or rebellion."<ref>{{Cite news |date=December 28, 2023 |title=Trump blocked from Maine presidential ballot in 2024 |language=en-GB |work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67837639 |access-date=December 29, 2023 |archive-date=December 29, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231229000951/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67837639 |url-status=live |first=Max |last=Matza }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=December 29, 2023 |title=Maine's top election official rules Trump ineligible for 2024 primary ballot|first=Alex |last=Seitz-Wald |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/maines-top-election-official-rules-trump-ineligible-2024-primary-ballo-rcna131375 |access-date=December 29, 2023|website=NBC News|language=en|archive-date=December 29, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231229002413/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/maines-top-election-official-rules-trump-ineligible-2024-primary-ballo-rcna131375|url-status=live }}</ref> Bellows further concluded that the 22nd Amendment did not prevent Trump from running for president in 2024.<ref name="me_decision_pr" /> Bellows stayed Trump's removal from the ballot pending the earlier of the resolution of any appeal Trump might make to the Maine Superior Court or the expiration of his deadline to make such an appeal.<ref name="me_decision_pr" /><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Montellaro |first1=Zach |date=December 28, 2023|title=Maine strips Trump from the ballot, inflaming legal war over his candidacy|url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/28/maine-kicks-trump-off-ballot-under-14th-amendment-00133294 |website=Politico |access-date=December 29, 2023|language=en|archive-date=December 29, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231229014234/https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/28/maine-kicks-trump-off-ballot-under-14th-amendment-00133294 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Freiman |first1=Jordan |date=December 28, 2023 |title=Maine secretary of state disqualifies Trump from primary ballot|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-maine-primary-ballot-disqualified-secretary-of-state-shenna-bellows/|website=CBS News |access-date=December 29, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=December 29, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231229014916/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-maine-primary-ballot-disqualified-secretary-of-state-shenna-bellows/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
On January 2, 2024, Trump appealed Bellows' decision to the [[Maine Superior Court]] in [[Kennebec County, Maine|Kennebec County]].<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Ohm |first1=Rachel |date=January 2, 2024 |title=Trump appeals Maine secretary of state's decision to bar him from primary ballot|url=https://www.pressherald.com/2024/01/02/appeal-filed-in-response-to-maine-secretary-of-states-decision-to-bar-trump-from-primary-ballot/ |website=Portland Press Herald |access-date=January 3, 2024 |language=en |archive-date=January 2, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240102232548/https://www.pressherald.com/2024/01/02/appeal-filed-in-response-to-maine-secretary-of-states-decision-to-bar-trump-from-primary-ballot/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Marley |first1=Patrick |date=February 2, 2024 |title=Trump appeals Maine's decision to ban him from the primary ballot|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/02/trump-maine-ballot-appeal-14th-amendment/ |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=January 3, 2024 |language=en}}</ref> On January 17, the Superior Court extended the stay of the effects of Bellows' decision by remanding the case back to her for reconsideration after the U.S. Supreme Court rules in ''Trump v. Anderson''.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Schonfeld |first=Zach |date=January 17, 2024 |title=Maine judge defers decision on Trump 14th Amendment question until Supreme Court rules |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4414169-maine-judge-trump-14th-amendment-primary-ballot-supreme-court/ |access-date=January 17, 2024 |work=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Murphy |first=Michaela |date=January 17, 2024|title=Order and Decision (M.R. Civ. P. 80C) |url=https://www.courts.maine.gov/news/trump/order-and-decision.pdf |access-date=January 17, 2024 |work=courts.maine.gov}}</ref> Bellows appealed to the [[Maine Supreme Judicial Court]] on January 19,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maine-trump-ballot-eligibility-state-supreme-court-to-review/|title=Maine's top election official asks state supreme court to review Trump ballot eligibility decision|work=[[CBS News]]|last=Quinn|first=Melissa|date=January 19, 2024|accessdate=January 22, 2024|archive-date=January 21, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240121232110/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maine-trump-ballot-eligibility-state-supreme-court-to-review/|url-status=live}}</ref> though the appeal was dismissed on January 24.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-ballot-insurrection-amendment-2240b954d91c442b5644c74b2823f2c0|title=Maine’s top court dismisses appeal of judge’s decision on Trump ballot status|work=[[Associated Press]]|date=January 24, 2024|accessdate=January 24, 2024|last=Sharp|first=David}}</ref>
=== Massachusetts ===
While [[Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts|Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth]] [[William F. Galvin]] has stated that Trump will appear on the [[2024 Massachusetts Republican presidential primary|Massachusetts Republican primary]] ballot barring a court order,<ref>{{cite news|title=Galvin: Trump on track to be on the Mass. primary ballot, barring court orders|date=December 21, 2023|publisher=[[WBUR-FM|WBUR]]|url=https://www.wbur.org/news/2023/12/21/galvin-trump-mass-primary-ballot-colorado-courts|access-date=January 4, 2024|archive-date=January 4, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240104234628/https://www.wbur.org/news/2023/12/21/galvin-trump-mass-primary-ballot-colorado-courts|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Doran|first1=Sam|date=January 2, 2024|title=Galvin says Trump will appear on Mass. primary ballot|publisher=WBUR|agency=[[State House News Service]]|url=https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/01/02/trump-name-massachusetts-primary-ballot|access-date=January 4, 2024|archive-date=January 3, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240103001608/https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/01/02/trump-name-massachusetts-primary-ballot|url-status=live}}</ref> a group of Massachusetts voters filed a petition with the Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission to remove Trump from the primary and [[2024 United States presidential election in Massachusetts|general election]] ballots under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment on January 4, 2024.<ref>{{cite news|title=Group of Massachusetts voters file to remove Former President Trump from ballot|publisher=[[WHDH (TV)|WHDH]]|agency=State House News Service|url=https://whdh.com/news/group-of-massachusetts-voters-file-to-remove-former-president-trump-from-ballot/|date=January 4, 2024 |access-date=January 4, 2024 |archive-date=January 4, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240104231306/https://whdh.com/news/group-of-massachusetts-voters-file-to-remove-former-president-trump-from-ballot/|url-status=live}}</ref> On January 18, an initial hearing was held.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Kwangwari |first1=Munashe |last2=Klein |first2=Asher |date=January 18, 2024 |title=Commission considers objections to Trump being on Mass. primary ballot |url=https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/commission-to-consider-objections-to-trump-being-on-mass-ballot/3250659/ |publisher=[[WBTS-CD|WBTS]] |access-date=January 20, 2024|language=en}}</ref> On January 22, the Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission dismissed the primary ballot challenge citing a lack of jurisdiction.<ref>{{cite news|last=Ganley|first=Shaun|date=January 22, 2024|title=Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission rejects attempt to remove Trump from primary ballot|publisher=[[WCVB-TV|WCVB]]|url=https://www.wcvb.com/article/massachusetts-donald-trump-presidential-primary-ballot-decision/46494516|access-date=January 22, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Lavery|first=Tréa|date=January 22, 2024|title=Donald Trump will appear on the ballot in Mass. Republican presidential primary|work=[[The Republican (Springfield, Massachusetts)|Springfield Republican]]|publisher=[[Advance Publications]]|url=https://www.masslive.com/politics/2024/01/donald-trump-will-appear-on-the-ballot-in-mass-presidential-primary.html|access-date=January 22, 2024}}</ref> On January 23, the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the [[Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=DeGray |first=Nick |date=January 24, 2024 |title=Appeal filed with Supreme Judicial Court to remove Trump from Massachusetts ballot |url=https://www.wwlp.com/news/state-politics/appeal-filed-with-supreme-judicial-court-to-remove-trump-from-massachusetts-ballot/ |publisher=[[WWLP]]|access-date=January 27, 2024 |language=en}}</ref> On January 29, the case was dismissed for lack of ripeness.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Lisinski |first=Chris |date=January 29, 2024 |title=Massachusetts Judge keeps former President Donald Trump on the ballot for 2024 election |url=https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/massachusetts-judge-keeps-former-president-donald-trump-ballot-2024-election/MUGHWJB6UVHDXNULMSXB6RW6IQ/ |publisher=[[WFXT]]| agency=State House News Service |access-date=January 31, 2024 |language=en}}</ref> The plaintiffs appealed.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Winger |first=Richard |title=Justice Frank Gaziano of the Massachusetts Supreme Court Leaves Trump on Ballot, but Objectors Then Ask Full Court to Hear Their Appeal |url=https://ballot-access.org/2024/01/30/justice-frank-gaziano-of-the-massachusetts-supreme-court-leaves-trump-on-ballot-but-objectors-then-ask-full-court-to-hear-their-appeal/ |website=Ballot Access News |access-date=January 31, 2024 |language=en}}</ref>
===Other states===
On December 20, 2023, a voter challenge filed with the [[North Carolina State Board of Elections]] against Trump's candidacy in the [[2024 North Carolina Republican presidential primary|North Carolina Republican primary]] citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was denied with the State Board citing a lack of jurisdiction to hear the complaint. On December 29, the plaintiff appealed to the [[North Carolina Superior Court]] in [[Wake County, North Carolina|Wake County]].<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Willis |first1=Amy Passaretti |date=January 3, 2024 |title=NC voter appeals state BOE's denial of Trump's candidacy to superior court |url=https://portcitydaily.com/latest-news/2024/01/03/nc-voter-appeals-state-boes-denial-of-trumps-candidacy-to-superior-court/ |website=Port City Daily |access-date=January 5, 2024 |language=en |archive-date=January 5, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240105020611/https://portcitydaily.com/latest-news/2024/01/03/nc-voter-appeals-state-boes-denial-of-trumps-candidacy-to-superior-court/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
On February 13, a challenge citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against Trump's candidacy in the [[2024 Indiana Republican presidential primary|Indiana Republican primary]] citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was filed with the Indiana Election Commission.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Carlony |first=Brittany |title=Donald Trump faces a challenge aiming to keep him off Indiana ballot. Here's why |url=https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/02/16/jan-6-subject-of-trump-primary-ballot-challenge-in-indiana/72631205007/ |website=IndyStar |access-date=February 17, 2024 |language=en}}</ref> On February 27, it was denied.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Smith |first=Brandon |date=February 27, 2024 |title=Donald Trump remains on Indiana ballot after state election board dismisses challenge |url=https://www.wbaa.org/local-news/2024-02-27/donald-trump-remains-on-indiana-ballot-after-state-election-board-dismisses-challenge |website=WBAA |access-date=February 29, 2024 |language=en}}</ref>
==Public opinion==
{{see also|Political polarization in the United States#Voting patterns|Red states and blue states#Polarization|Pluralistic ignorance|False consensus effect|False-uniqueness effect|Spiral of silence}}
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
|+ Investigations, indictments, trials, and campaign announcement timeline
|-
! Event !! Date
|-
| Election Day of 2020 presidential election || November 3, 2020
|-
| January 6 Capitol attack during 2021 Electoral College vote count || January 6, 2021
|-
| [[United States Justice Department investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election|Justice Department investigation of Capitol attack and 2020 election obstruction]] opened || January 7, 2021
|-
| House January 6 Committee formed || July 1, 2021
|-
| [[FBI search of Mar-a-Lago]] || August 8, 2022
|-
| [[New York criminal investigation of The Trump Organization|Criminal trial]] of [[Trump Organization]] heard by the [[New York Supreme Court]] begins || August 18, 2022
|-
| [[Attorney General of New York|New York Attorney General]] announces [[New York civil investigation of The Trump Organization|civil fraud lawsuit]] against Trump Organization || September 21, 2022
|-
| [[Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign]] officially announced || November 15, 2022
|-
| Smith special counsel investigation opened || November 18, 2022
|-
| Trump Organization convicted in New York criminal trial || December 6, 2022
|-
| House January 6 Committee refers Trump to Justice Department for prosecution || December 19, 2022
|-
| House January 6 Committee releases final report || December 22, 2022
|-
| New York Supreme Court indicts Trump in [[Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York|falsified business records case]] || March 30, 2023
|-
| Southern Florida U.S. District Court indicts Trump in [[Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (classified documents case)|classified documents case]] || June 8, 2023
|-
| District of Columbia U.S. District Court indicts Trump in election obstruction case || August 1, 2023
|-
| [[Fulton County, Georgia|Fulton County]] [[Georgia Superior Courts|Superior Court]] indicts Trump in [[Georgia election racketeering prosecution|Georgia election racketeering case]] || August 14, 2023
|-
| New York civil fraud lawsuit trial begins || October 2, 2023
|-
|}
The following tables present a survey of the results from various polls. Due to the substance and exact wording of the poll questions and response options provided to survey respondents varying by poll, this summary should be considered as approximative. For the precise results (which often cover more alternatives than the summary does), see the separate polls.
{| class="wikitable"
|+style="font-size:100%" | January 6 investigations, charges, or conviction disqualify Trump from Presidency under 14th Amendment by states or Supreme Court
|- valign= bottom
! style="width:250px;"| Poll source
! style="width:180px;"| Date(s) administered
! class=small | Sample size
! <small>MoE</small>
! style="width:100px;"| % agree
! style="width:100px;"| % disagree
! style="width:100px;"| % no opinion
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20220927_yahoo_toplines_1.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo! News 9-30-2022">{{cite news|last=Romano|first=Andrew|date=September 30, 2022|title=Poll: Most U.S. voters now say Trump should not be allowed to serve as president again|website=Yahoo! News|publisher=Yahoo! Inc.|url=https://news.yahoo.com/poll-most-us-voters-now-say-trump-should-not-be-allowed-to-serve-as-president-again-100014416.html|access-date=January 24, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-September2022|"59. Given what we know about the ongoing investigations into Donald Trump, do you think he should be allowed to serve as president again in the future?"}}
| align=center| September 23–27, 2022
| align=center| 1,566 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''50%'''
| align=center| 31%
| align=center| 19%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20221017_yahoo_toplines.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-October2022|"49. Given what we know about the ongoing investigations into Donald Trump, do you think he should be allowed to serve as president again in the future?"}}
| align=center| October 13–17, 2022
| align=center| 1,629 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''49%'''
| align=center| 34%
| align=center| 16%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230227_yahoo_toplines.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-February2023|"41. Given what we know about his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, should Donald Trump be allowed to serve as president again in the future?"}}
| align=center| February 23–27, 2023
| align=center| 1,516 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''49%'''
| align=center| 37%
| align=center| 14%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us03292023_ufuy73.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 3-29-2023">{{cite press release|title=Mixed Signals On Trump: Majority Says Criminal Charges Should Disqualify '24 Run, Popularity Is Unchanged, Leads DeSantis By Double Digits, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds|date=March 29, 2023|publisher=Quinnipiac University|url=https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3870|access-date=January 24, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-March2023|"33. As you may know, there are multiple state and federal criminal investigations of former President Donald Trump. If there are criminal charges filed against him, do you think those criminal charges should disqualify him from running for president again, or don't you think so?"}}
| align=center| March 23–27, 2023
| align=center| 1,788 adults
| align=center| ± 2.3%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''57%'''
| align=center| 38%
| align=center| 5%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Trump%20Indictment%20Wave%205%20Federal%20Charges%20Topline%2008%2003%202023_0.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Reuters 8-3-2023">{{cite news|last=Lange|first=Jason|title=About half of US Republicans could spurn Trump if he is convicted, Reuters/Ipsos poll shows|date=August 3, 2023|website=Reuters|publisher=Thomson Reuters|url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/about-half-us-republicans-could-spurn-trump-if-he-is-convicted-reutersipsos-poll-2023-08-03/|access-date=January 24, 2024}}</ref><ref name="Ipsos 8-3-2023">{{cite press release|last1=Lohr|first1=Annaleise Azevedo|last2=Jackson|first2=Chris|last3=Feldman|first3=Sarah|date=August 3, 2023|title=Reuters/Ipsos Survey: Despite indictments, Trump leads primary field as DeSantis loses support|publisher=Ipsos|url=https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reutersipsos-survey-despite-indictments-trump-leads-primary-field-desantis-loses-support|access-date=January 24, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-August2023-TM3138Y23|"TM3138Y23. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statement: Donald Trump should be disqualified from running for president because of the criminal charges against him"}}
| align=center| August 2–3, 2023
| align=center| 1,005 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''59%'''
| align=center| 32%
| align=center| 8%
|-
| [https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23936298/cnn-poll-on-gop-primary-voters.pdf CNN/SSRS]<ref name="CNN 9-5-2023">{{cite news|last1=Agiesta|first1=Jennifer|last2=Edwards-Levy|first2=Ariel|date=September 5, 2023|title=CNN Poll: GOP voters' broad support for Trump holds, with less than half seriously worried criminal charges will harm his 2024 chances|publisher=CNN|url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/05/politics/cnn-poll-trump-primary-criminal-charges/index.html|access-date=January 24, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=CNN-SSRS-September2023|"Q38. As you may have heard, Donald Trump is facing criminal charges in four separate cases. For each of these cases, please indicate whether you think, if true, those charges (should disqualify Trump from the presidency), (cast doubts on his fitness for the job, but are not disqualifying, or (are not relevant to his fitness for the presidency)? Charges related to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol"}}
| align=center| August 25–31, 2023
| align=center| 1,503 adults
| align=center| ± 3.5%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''51%'''
| align=center| 49%
| align=center| —
|-
| [https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/0cc7a4b2-8e80-46f3-9c78-3ff36f7a08ee.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_4 Washington Post/ABC News]<ref name="Washington Post 9-29-2023">{{cite news|last1=Balz|first1=Dan|last2=Clement|first2=Scott|last3=Guskin|first3=Emily|date=September 29, 2023|title=Post-ABC poll: Biden faces criticism on economy, immigration and age|work=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/24/biden-trump-poll-2024-election/|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=WashingtonPost-ABCNews-September2023|"16. The U.S. Constitution prohibits people who have taken an oath to the Constitution from holding public office if they have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States. Do you think Trump should or should not be prohibited from serving as president under this provision?"}}
| align=center| September 15–20, 2023
| align=center| 1,006 adults
| align=center| ± 3.5%
| align=center| 44%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''51%'''
| align=center| 5%
|-
| [https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000018a-e137-d2cf-a3af-fbb729e80000 Morning Consult/Politico]<ref name="Politico 9-29-2023">{{cite news|last=Montellaro|first=Zach|date=September 29, 2023|title=Poll: Majority of voters would support disqualifying Trump under 14th Amendment|website=Politico|publisher=Axel Springer SE|url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/29/poll-trump-disqualified-14th-amendment-00118980|access-date=January 24, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=MorningConsult-Politico-September2023|"POL12. And would you say that the 14th Amendment's ban on insurrectionists and those who have aided insurrectionists from holding office disqualifies former President Donald Trump from appearing on state presidential ballots for 2024?"}}
| align=center| September 23–25, 2023
| align=center| 1,967 RV
| align=center| ± 2.0%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''51%'''
| align=center| 34%
| align=center| 15%
|-
| [https://www.newsnationnow.com/polls/full-survey-views-on-gop-candidates-foreign-conflicts-and-more/ NewsNation/Decision Desk HQ]{{efn|name=NewsNation-DecisionDeskHQ-November2023|"Question 28: Would you support or oppose states disqualifying Donald Trump from being on the ballot if he is convicted in one or more of the criminal cases against him?"}}
| align=center| November 26–27, 2023
| align=center| 3,200 RV
| align=center| ± 1.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''57%'''
| align=center| 43%
| align=center| —
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/cbsnews_20240107_PDF1.pdf CBS News/YouGov]{{efn|name=CBSNews-YouGov-January2024-Q33|"33. Some states have removed Donald Trump's name from their election ballots, arguing he committed insurrection and is therefore ineligible to serve as president. Other states are keeping Donald Trump’s name on their ballots, arguing it is up to voters to decide if he should serve. Regardless of how you plan to vote, which do you think states should do?"}}
| align=center| January 3–5, 2024
| align=center| 2,157 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| align=center| 46%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''54%'''
| align=center| —
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2024-01/ABC-News-Ipsos-Topline-Jan2024.pdf ABC News/Ipsos]<ref name="ABC News 1-12-2024">{{cite news|last=Langer|first=Gary|date=January 12, 2024|title=Americans divided on how SCOTUS should handle Trump ballot access: POLL|publisher=ABC News|url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/americans-divided-scotus-handle-trump-ballot-access-poll/story?id=106300304|access-date=January 24, 2024}}</ref><ref name="Ipsos 1-12-2024">{{cite press release|last1=Jackson|first1=Chris|last2=Newall|first2=Mallory|last3=Sawyer|first3=Johnny|last4=Rollason|first4=Charlie|date=January 12, 2024|title=American public split on Trump removal from Colorado, Maine ballots|publisher=Ipsos|url=https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reutersipsos-survey-trump-remains-favored-2024-presidential-nomination-despite-criminal-charges|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=ABCNews-Ipsos-January2024|"20. It's expected that the U.S. Supreme Court will review the rulings in Colorado and Maine that ordered Trump off the ballot. What do you think the U.S. Supreme Court should do?"}}
| align=center| January 4–8, 2024
| align=center| 2,228 adults
| align=center| ± 2.5%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''56%'''
| align=center| 39%
| align=center| 5%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_toplines_final.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo News 2-1-2024">{{cite news|last=Romano|first=Andrew|date=February 1, 2024|title=Yahoo News/YouGov poll: 51% of voters say convicting Trump of a 'serious crime' would be a 'fair outcome'|website=Yahoo! News|publisher=Yahoo! Inc.|url=https://news.yahoo.com/yahoo-newsyougov-poll-most-voters-say-convicting-trump-of-a-serious-crime-would-be-a-fair-outcome-100022394.html|access-date=February 2, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q27|"27. Do you agree or disagree that individual states should remove Trump from their ballots under the 14th Amendment as a result of his actions regarding the Jan. 6 Capitol attack?"}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,594 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''46%'''
| align=center| 39%
| align=center| 15%
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|+style="font-size:100%" | Trump should withdraw candidacy due to January 6 charges or not serve or be elected President if charged or convicted of a serious crime
|- valign= bottom
! style="width:270px;"| Poll source
! style="width:170px;"| Date(s) administered
! class=small | Sample size
! <small>MoE</small>
! style="width:100px;"| % agree
! style="width:100px;"| % disagree
! style="width:100px;"| % no opinion
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-03/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Large%20Sample%20Survey%20Issues%20Poll%20March%202023%20Topline%2003%2024%202023.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Ipsos 3-24-2023">{{cite press release|last1=Lohr|first1=Annaleise Azevedo|last2=Jackson|first2=Chris|date=March 24, 2023|title=Reuters/Ipsos Issues Survey March 2023|publisher=Ipsos|url=https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reutersipsos-issues-survey-march-2023|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-March2023|"TM2037Y21_4. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Former President Donald Trump should NOT run for president again if he is indicted in one of the ongoing investigations about him"}}
| align=center| March 14–20, 2023
| align=center| 4,410 adults
| align=center| ± 1.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 28%
| align=center| 9%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-04/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Trump%20Indictment%20Survey%20Topline%204.6.23_0.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Reuters 4-6-2023">{{cite news|last=Cowan|first=Richard|date=April 6, 2023|title=Americans divided over criminal charges against Trump - Reuters/Ipsos poll|website=Reuters|publisher=Thomson Reuters|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/americans-divided-over-criminal-charges-against-trump-reutersipsos-poll-2023-04-06/|access-date=January 24, 2024}}</ref><ref name="Ipsos 4-7-2023">{{cite press release|last1=Lohr|first1=Annaleise Azevedo|last2=Jackson|first2=Chris|date=April 7, 2023|title=Reuters/Ipsos Survey: Trump remains favored in 2024 presidential nomination despite criminal charges|publisher=Ipsos|url=https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reutersipsos-survey-trump-remains-favored-2024-presidential-nomination-despite-criminal-charges|access-date=January 24, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-April2023|"TM3138Y23. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements: ... h. Donald Trump should be disqualified from running for president because of the criminal charges against him"}}
| align=center| April 5–6, 2023
| align=center| 1,004 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''51%'''
| align=center| 43%
| align=center| 6%
|-
| [https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_Trump_202304211108-1.pdf NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist]<ref name="NPR 4-25-2023">{{cite news|last=Montanaro|first=Domenico|date=April 25, 2023|title=Most Republicans would vote for Trump even if he's convicted of a crime, poll finds|publisher=NPR|url=https://www.npr.org/2023/04/25/1171660997/poll-republicans-trump-president-convicted-crime|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref><ref name="Marist 4-25-2023">{{cite press release|title=A Second Trump Presidency?|date=April 25, 2023|publisher=Marist Institute for Public Opinion|url=https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/a-second-trump-presidency/|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=NPR-PBSNewsHour-Marist|"Do you want Donald Trump to be
president again? If yes: If Donald Trump is found guilty of a crime, do you still want him to be president again?"}}
| align=center| April 17–19, 2023
| align=center| 1,291 adults
| align=center| ± 3.4%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''70%'''
| align=center| 27%
| align=center| 2%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230530_yahoo_toplines.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q50|"50. If Donald Trump is convicted of a serious crime, do you think he should be allowed to serve as president again in the future?"}}
| align=center| May 25–30, 2023
| align=center| 1,520 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''62%'''
| align=center| 23%
| align=center| 15%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-06/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Trump%20Indictment%20Wave%204%20Federal%20Charges%20Topline%2006%2013%202023.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Ipsos 6-13-2023">{{cite press release|last1=Lohr|first1=Annaleise Azevedo|last2=Jackson|first2=Chris|date=June 13, 2023|title=Reuters/Ipsos Survey: Trump maintains lead in presidential race despite criminal indictment|publisher=Ipsos|url=https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reutersipsos-survey-trump-maintains-lead-presidential-race-despite-criminal-indictment|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-June 2023|"TM3138Y23_10. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statement: Donald Trump should be disqualified from running for president because of the criminal charges against him"}}
| align=center| June 9–12, 2023
| align=center| 1,005 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''50%'''
| align=center| 38%
| align=center| 12%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230717_yahoo_toplines.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q29|"29. If Donald Trump is convicted of a serious crime in the coming months, do you think he should be allowed to serve as president again in the future?"}}
| align=center| July 13–17, 2023
| align=center| 1,638 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''62%'''
| align=center| 24%
| align=center| 14%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Trump%20Indictment%20Wave%205%20Federal%20Charges%20Topline%2008%2003%202023_0.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Reuters 8-3-2023" /><ref name="Ipsos 8-3-2023" />{{efn|name=ReutersIpsosAugust2023-TM3181Y23|"TM3181Y23. If all other
things were equal, would you vote for Donald Trump for president in 2024 if he is/has been… Convicted of a felony crime by a jury"}}
| align=center| August 2–3, 2023
| align=center| 1,005 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''67%'''
| align=center| 18%
| align=center| 15%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/Topline%20ABC_Ipsos%20Poll%20Final.pdf ABC News/Ipsos]<ref name="ABC News 8-4-2023">{{cite news|last=Axelrod|first=Tal|date=August 4, 2023|title=Nearly two-thirds of Americans think Jan. 6 charges against Trump are serious: POLL|publisher=ABC News|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/thirds-americans-jan-6-charges-trump-poll/story?id=101954747|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref><ref name="Ipsos 8-4-2023">{{cite press release|last1=Jackson|first1=Chris|last2=Feldman|first2=Sarah|last3=Sawyer|first3=Johnny|last4=Mendez|first4=Bernard|date=August 4, 2023|title=Americans divided on January 6th indictment, in line with other criminal cases against Trump|publisher=Ipsos|url=https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/abc-news-trump-indictment-january-6|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=ABCNews-Ipsos-August2023-Q5|"5. Do you think Donald Trump should or should not suspend his presidential campaign because of this indictment?"}}
| align=center| August 2–3, 2023
| align=center| 1,076 adults
| align=center| ± 3.4%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''49%'''
| align=center| 36%
| align=center| 15%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us08162023_usos65.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 8-16-2023">{{cite press release|title=Majority Of Americans Say Trump Should Be Prosecuted On Federal Criminal Charges Linked To 2020 Election, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; DeSantis Slips, Trump Widens Lead In GOP Primary|date=August 16, 2023|publisher=Quinnipiac University|url=https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3877|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-August2023-Q31|"31. If a person is convicted of a felony, do you think they should still be eligible to be president of the United States, or not?"}}
| align=center| August 10–14, 2023
| align=center| 1,818 adults
| align=center| ± 2.5%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''68%'''
| align=center| 23%
| align=center| 9%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230821_yahoo_results.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q39|"39. If Donald Trump is convicted of a serious crime in the coming months, do you think he should be allowed to serve as president again in the future?"}}
| align=center| August 17–21, 2023
| align=center| 1,665 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''60%'''
| align=center| 26%
| align=center| 14%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-09/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Large%20Sample%20Poll%20%235%20Topline%2009%2020%202023.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Ipsos 9-21-2023">{{cite press release|last1=Jackson|first1=Chris|last2=Lohr|first2=Annaleise Azevedo|last3=Rollason|first3=Charlie|last4=Mendez|first4=Bernard|date=September 21, 2023|title=Reuters/Ipsos Issues Survey September 2023|publisher=Ipsos|url=https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reutersipsos-issues-survey-september-2023|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-September2023|"Q3181Y23_1. If all other things were equal, would you vote for Donald Trump for president in 2024 if he is/has been - Convicted of a felony crime by a jury"}}
| align=center| September 8–14, 2023
| align=center| 4,415 adults
| align=center| ± 1.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''57%'''
| align=center| 26%
| align=center| 17%
|-
| [https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_202309291156.pdf NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist]<ref name="PBS NewsHour 12-19-2023">{{cite news|last=Loffman|first=Matt|date=October 4, 2023|title=These new poll numbers show why Biden and Trump are stuck in a 2024 dead heat|work=PBS NewsHour|publisher=WETA|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/these-new-poll-numbers-show-why-biden-and-trump-are-stuck-in-a-2024-dead-heat|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref><ref name="Marist 10-4-2023">{{cite press release|title=2024 Presidential Contest|date=October 4, 2023|publisher=Marist Institute for Public Opinion|url=https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/2024-presidential-contest/|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=NPR-PBSNewsHour-Marist}}
| align=center| September 25–28, 2023
| align=center| 1,256 adults
| align=center| ± 3.5%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''66%'''
| align=center| 33%
| align=center| 1%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-12/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Large%20Sample%20Survey%20%236%20Topline%2012%2013%202023.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Reuters 12-11-2023">{{cite news|last=Sullivan|first=Andy|date=December 11, 2023|title=Trump holds wide lead in Republican 2024 nominating contest, Reuters/Ipsos poll shows|website=Reuters|publisher=Thomas Reuters|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-holds-wide-lead-republican-2024-nominating-contest-reutersipsos-poll-2023-12-11/|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-December2023|"Q2037Y21_4. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? - Former President Donald Trump should NOT run for president again if he is convicted in one of the criminal trials he faces"}}
| align=center| December 5–11, 2023
| align=center| 4,411 adults
| align=center| ± 1.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''64%'''
| align=center| 28%
| align=center| 9%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20231218_yahoo_toplines.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo! News 12-19-2023">{{cite news|last=Romano|first=Andrew|date=December 19, 2023|title=Poll: Trump is tied with Biden for now — but criminal trials and unpopular plans pose risks for 2024|website=Yahoo! News|publisher=Yahoo! Inc.|url=https://news.yahoo.com/poll-trump-is-tied-with-biden-for-now--but-criminal-trials-and-unpopular-plans-pose-risks-for-2024-204526992.html|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q25|"25. If Donald Trump is convicted of a serious crime in the coming months, do you think he should be allowed to serve as president again in the future?"}}
| align=center| December 14–18, 2023
| align=center| 1,533 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 25%
| align=center| 12%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2024-01/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Large%20Sample%20Survey%20%23%201%20January%202024%20Topline.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Ipsos 1-16-2024">{{cite press release|last1=Jackson|first1=Chris|last2=Lohr|first2=Annaleise Azevedo|date=January 16, 2024|title=Reuters/Ipsos Issues Survey - January 2024|publisher=Ipsos|url=https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reutersipsos-issues-survey-january-2024|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-January2024|"TM3181Y23_1. If all other things were equal, would you vote for Donald Trump for president in 2024 if he is/has been... Convicted of a felony crime by a jury"}}
| align=center| January 3–9, 2024
| align=center| 4,677 adults
| align=center| ± 1.5%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''58%'''
| align=center| 20%
| align=center| 22%
|-
| [https://news.gallup.com/poll/609344/felonies-old-age-heavily-count-against-candidates.aspx Gallup]{{efn|name=Gallup|"If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be convicted of a felony crime by a jury, would you vote for that person?"}}
| align=center| January 2–22, 2024
| align=center| 506 adults
| align=center| ± 6.0%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''70%'''
| align=center| 23%
| align=center| 7%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_toplines_final.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo News 2-1-2024" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q15|"15. Setting aside the law — if Donald Trump is convicted of a serious crime in the coming months, do you think he SHOULD be allowed to serve as president again in the future?"}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,594 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''53%'''
| align=center| 33%
| align=center| 13%
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|+style="font-size:100%" | Conspiring to overturn the results of a presidential election is a serious crime
|- valign= bottom
! style="width:210px;"| Poll source
! style="width:200px;"| Date(s) administered
! class=small | Sample size
! <small>MoE</small>
! style="width:100px;"| % agree
! style="width:100px;"| % disagree
! style="width:100px;"| % no opinion
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230530_yahoo_toplines.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48c|"48. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Conspiring to overturn the results of a presidential election"}}
| align=center| May 25–30, 2023
| align=center| 1,520 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''66%'''
| align=center| 18%
| align=center| 16%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230717_yahoo_toplines.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24c|"24. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Conspiring to overturn the results of a presidential election"}}
| align=center| July 13–17, 2023
| align=center| 1,638 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''70%'''
| align=center| 16%
| align=center| 14%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/Topline%20ABC_Ipsos%20Poll%20Final.pdf ABC News/Ipsos]<ref name="ABC News 8-4-2023" /><ref name="Ipsos 8-4-2023" />{{efn|name=ABCNews-Ipsos-August2023-Q2|"2. As you may know, Donald Trump has been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Do you think the charges against Donald Trump in this case are: Very serious; Somewhat serious; Not too serious; Not serious at all"}}
| align=center| August 2–3, 2023
| align=center| 1,076 adults
| align=center| ± 3.4%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''65%'''
| align=center| 24%
| align=center| 10%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us08162023_usos65.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 8-16-2023" />{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32|"32. How serious do you think the federal criminal charges accusing former President Trump of attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election are; very serious, somewhat serious, not too serious, or not serious at all?"}}
| align=center| August 10–14, 2023
| align=center| 1,818 adults
| align=center| ± 2.5%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''64%'''
| align=center| 32%
| align=center| 4%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230821_yahoo_results.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q29c|"29. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Conspiring to overturn the results of a presidential election"}}
| align=center| August 17–21, 2023
| align=center| 1,665 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''70%'''
| align=center| 17%
| align=center| 13%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us09132023_uscj98.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 9-13-2023">{{cite press release|title=2024 Primary Races: Nearly 3 In 10 Trump Supporters & Half Of Biden Supporters Signal They Are Open To Other Options, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Voters Support Age Limits On Candidates For President & Congress|date=September 13, 2023|publisher=Quinnipiac University|url=https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3878|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-September2023|"39. Are the charges of attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, including his actions around the time of the storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021; very serious, somewhat serious, not too serious, or not serious at all?"}}
| align=center| September 7–11, 2023
| align=center| 1,910 adults
| align=center| ± 2.2%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 34%
| align=center| 3%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20231218_yahoo_toplines.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo! News 12-19-2023" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q24c|"24. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Conspiring to overturn the results of a presidential election"}}
| align=center| December 14–18, 2023
| align=center| 1,533 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''66%'''
| align=center| 18%
| align=center| 15%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20231221.pdf YouGov]{{efn|name=YouGov-December2023-Q4|"4. How serious are the following cases against Donald Trump? Federal election and Jan. 6 case: 4 charges, including for efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to obstruct the certification of the electoral vote."}}
| align=center| December 21–30, 2023
| align=center| 1,000 adults
| align=center| ± 4.0%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''67%'''
| align=center| 25%
| align=center| 9%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_toplines_final.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo News 2-1-2024" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q12|"12. And which of the following things would make someone unfit for the presidency if they were convicted of it? Please select all that apply."}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,594 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''58%'''
| align=center| 17%
| align=center| 16%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20240125.pdf YouGov]{{efn|name=YouGov-January2024-Q5|"5. How serious are the following cases against Donald Trump? Federal election and Jan. 6 case: 4 charges, including for efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to obstruct the certification of the electoral vote."}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,000 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 27%
| align=center| 10%
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|+style="font-size:100%" | Attempting to obstruct the certification of a presidential election is a serious crime
|- valign= bottom
! style="width:210px;"| Poll source
! style="width:200px;"| Date(s) administered
! class=small | Sample size
! <small>MoE</small>
! style="width:100px;"| % agree
! style="width:100px;"| % disagree
! style="width:100px;"| % no opinion
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230530_yahoo_toplines.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48d|"48. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Attempting to obstruct the certification of a presidential election"}}
| align=center| May 25–30, 2023
| align=center| 1,520 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 20%
| align=center| 17%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230717_yahoo_toplines.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24d|"24. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Attempting to obstruct the certification of a presidential election"}}
| align=center| July 13–17, 2023
| align=center| 1,638 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''67%'''
| align=center| 17%
| align=center| 16%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/Topline%20ABC_Ipsos%20Poll%20Final.pdf ABC News/Ipsos]<ref name="ABC News 8-4-2023" /><ref name="Ipsos 8-4-2023" />{{efn|name=ABCNews-Ipsos-August2023-Q2}}
| align=center| August 2–3, 2023
| align=center| 1,076 adults
| align=center| ± 3.4%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''65%'''
| align=center| 24%
| align=center| 10%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us08162023_usos65.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 8-16-2023" />{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32}}
| align=center| August 10–14, 2023
| align=center| 1,818 adults
| align=center| ± 2.5%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''64%'''
| align=center| 32%
| align=center| 4%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230821_yahoo_results.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q29d|"29. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Attempting to obstruct the certification of a presidential election"}}
| align=center| August 17–21, 2023
| align=center| 1,665 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''70%'''
| align=center| 17%
| align=center| 13%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us09132023_uscj98.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 9-13-2023" />{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-September2023}}
| align=center| September 7–11, 2023
| align=center| 1,910 adults
| align=center| ± 2.2%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 34%
| align=center| 3%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20231218_yahoo_toplines.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo! News 12-19-2023" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q24d|"24. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Attempting to obstruct the certification of a presidential election"}}
| align=center| December 14–18, 2023
| align=center| 1,533 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''64%'''
| align=center| 19%
| align=center| 17%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20231221.pdf YouGov]{{efn|name=YouGov-December2023-Q4}}
| align=center| December 21–30, 2023
| align=center| 1,000 adults
| align=center| ± 4.0%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''67%'''
| align=center| 25%
| align=center| 9%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_toplines_final.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo News 2-1-2024" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q12}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,594 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''54%'''
| align=center| 17%
| align=center| 16%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20240125.pdf YouGov]{{efn|name=YouGov-January2024-Q5}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,000 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 27%
| align=center| 10%
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|+style="font-size:100%" | Inciting or aiding an insurrection against the federal government is a serious crime
|- valign= bottom
! style="width:210px;"| Poll source
! style="width:200px;"| Date(s) administered
! class=small | Sample size
! <small>MoE</small>
! style="width:100px;"| % agree
! style="width:100px;"| % disagree
! style="width:100px;"| % no opinion
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230530_yahoo_toplines.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48e|"48. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Inciting or aiding an insurrection against the federal government"}}
| align=center| May 25–30, 2023
| align=center| 1,520 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''64%'''
| align=center| 17%
| align=center| 19%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230717_yahoo_toplines.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24e|"24. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Inciting or aiding an insurrection against the federal government"}}
| align=center| July 13–17, 2023
| align=center| 1,638 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''70%'''
| align=center| 14%
| align=center| 16%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/Topline%20ABC_Ipsos%20Poll%20Final.pdf ABC News/Ipsos]<ref name="ABC News 8-4-2023" /><ref name="Ipsos 8-4-2023" />{{efn|name=ABCNews-Ipsos-August2023-Q2}}
| align=center| August 2–3, 2023
| align=center| 1,076 adults
| align=center| ± 3.4%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''65%'''
| align=center| 24%
| align=center| 10%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us08162023_usos65.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 8-16-2023" />{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32}}
| align=center| August 10–14, 2023
| align=center| 1,818 adults
| align=center| ± 2.5%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''64%'''
| align=center| 32%
| align=center| 4%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us09132023_uscj98.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 9-13-2023" />{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-September2023}}
| align=center| September 7–11, 2023
| align=center| 1,910 adults
| align=center| ± 2.2%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 34%
| align=center| 3%
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|+style="font-size:100%" | January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was not justified and was a criminal act
|- valign= bottom
! style="width:210px;"| Poll source
! style="width:200px;"| Date(s) administered
! class=small | Sample size
! <small>MoE</small>
! style="width:100px;"| % agree
! style="width:100px;"| % disagree
! style="width:100px;"| % no opinion
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2022-08/Reuters%20News%20Issue%20Poll%208%20-%20Political%20Violence%20Topline%20Aug%2016-17%202022.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Ipsos 8-22-2022">{{cite press release|last1=Jackson|first1=Chris|last2=Lohr|first2=Annaleise Azevedo|last3=Duran|first3=Jocelyn|date=August 22, 2022|title=Very few Americans believe political violence is acceptable|publisher=Ipsos|url=https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/very-few-americans-believe-political-violence-acceptable|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-August2022|"TM3037Y22. Which of the following best describes what you think happened on January 6th, 2021, when many people entered the U.S. Capitol building, even if neither is exactly right?"}}
| align=center| August 16–17, 2022
| align=center| 1,005 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''67%'''
| align=center| 33%
| align=center| —
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230821_yahoo_results.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-August2023|"26. Do you believe the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was justified or not justified?"}}
| align=center| August 17–21, 2023
| align=center| 1,665 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''68%'''
| align=center| 10%
| align=center| 21%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/January_6th_Capitol_Takeover_poll_results.pdf YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-January2024|"6. Do you approve or disapprove of the Trump supporters taking over the Capitol building in Washington, D.C.,
on January 6, 2021, to stop Congressional proceedings?"}}
| align=center| January 2–4, 2024
| align=center| 1,000 adults
| align=center| ± 4.1%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''74%'''
| align=center| 14%
| align=center| 13%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/cbsnews_20240107_PDF1.pdf CBS News/YouGov]{{efn|name=CBSNews-YouGov-January2024-Q23|"23. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the actions taken by the people who forced their way into the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021?"}}
| align=center| January 3–5, 2024
| align=center| 2,157 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''78%'''
| align=center| 22%
| align=center| —
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_toplines_final.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo News 2-1-2024" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q22|"22. Do you believe the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was justified or unjustified?"}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,594 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''62%'''
| align=center| 13%
| align=center| 25%
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|+style="font-size:100%" | Trial in federal obstruction case against Trump should occur before the general election in 2024
|- valign= bottom
! style="width:210px;"| Poll source
! style="width:200px;"| Date(s) administered
! class=small | Sample size
! <small>MoE</small>
! style="width:100px;"| % agree
! style="width:100px;"| % disagree
! style="width:100px;"| % no opinion
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/August%202023%20Politico%20Magazine%20Survey%20Trump%20Indictments.pdf Politico/Ipsos]<ref name="Politico 8-25-2023">{{cite news|last=Khardori|first=Ankush|date=August 25, 2023|title=Lock Him Up? A New Poll Has Some Bad News for Trump|website=Politico|publisher=Axel Springer SE|url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/08/25/ipsos-poll-trump-indictment-00112755|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref><ref name="Ipsos 8-25-2023">{{cite press release|last1=Jackson|first1=Chris|last2=Feldman|first2=Sarah|last3=Mendez|first3=Bernard|last4=Ivey|first4=Tyler|last5=Lohr|first5=Annaleise Azevedo|date=August 25, 2023|title=Three in five Americans say Trump should stand trial before the Republican primaries or 2024 general election|publisher=Ipsos|url=https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/politico-indictment-august-2023|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|name=Politico-Ipsos-August2023|"Q3. Should the federal trial on Donald Trump’s 2020 election subversion case take place before the 2024 presidential election in November 2024?"}}
| align=center| August 18–21, 2023
| align=center| 1,032 adults
| align=center| ± 3.2%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''61%'''
| align=center| 19%
| align=center| 19%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20231218_yahoo_toplines.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo! News 12-19-2023" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q28|"28. Do you think Trump's trials should take place before or after the 2024 general election?"}}
| align=center| December 14–18, 2023
| align=center| 1,533 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''61%'''
| align=center| 21%
| align=center| 19%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20231221.pdf YouGov]{{efn|name=YouGov-December2023-Q8|"8. When do you think trials for the following cases should begin? Federal election and Jan. 6 case: 4 charges, including for efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to obstruct the certification of the electoral vote."}}
| align=center| December 21–30, 2023
| align=center| 1,000 adults
| align=center| ± 4.0%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''42%'''
| align=center| 19%
| align=center| 39%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_toplines_final.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo News 2-1-2024" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q17|"17. Do you think Trump's trials should take place before or after the 2024 general election?"}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,594 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''58%'''
| align=center| 23%
| align=center| 19%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20240125.pdf YouGov]{{efn|name=YouGov-January2024-Q9|"9. When do you think trials for the following cases should begin? Federal election and Jan. 6 case: 4 charges, including for efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to obstruct the certification of the electoral vote."}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,000 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Green}} align=center| '''41%'''
| align=center| 22%
| align=center| 38%
|}
===Party affiliation===
{| class="wikitable"
|+style="font-size:100%" | January 6 investigations, charges, or conviction disqualify Trump from Presidency under 14th Amendment by states or Supreme Court
|- valign= bottom
! style="width:190px;"| Poll source
! style="width:200px;"| Date(s)<br />administered
! class=small | Sample<br />size
! <small>MoE</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20220927_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo! News 9-30-2022" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-September2022}}
| align=center| September 23–27, 2022
| align=center| 1,566 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''80%'''
| align=center| 10%
| align=center| 10%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''50%'''
| align=center| 32%
| align=center| 18%
| align=center| 17%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''62%'''
| align=center| 21%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20221017_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-October2022}}
| align=center| October 13–17, 2022
| align=center| 1,629 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''81%'''
| align=center| 11%
| align=center| 9%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''43%'''
| align=center| 39%
| align=center| 18%
| align=center| 22%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''66%'''
| align=center| 13%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230227_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-February2023}}
| align=center| February 23–27, 2023
| align=center| 1,516 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''77%'''
| align=center| 12%
| align=center| 11%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''46%'''
| align=center| 41%
| align=center| 13%
| align=center| 18%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''69%'''
| align=center| 13%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3870 Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 3-29-2023" />{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-March2023}}
| align=center| March 23–27, 2023
| align=center| 1,788 adults
| align=center| ± 2.3%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''88%'''
| align=center| 9%
| align=center| 3%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''55%'''
| align=center| 36%
| align=center| 8%
| align=center| 23%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''75%'''
| align=center| 2%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Trump%20Indictment%20Wave%205%20Federal%20Charges%20Topline%2008%2003%202023_0.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Reuters 8-3-2023" /><ref name="Ipsos 8-3-2023" />{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-August2023-TM3138Y23}}
| align=center| August 2–3, 2023
| align=center| 1,005 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''85%'''
| align=center| 11%
| align=center| 4%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''64%'''
| align=center| 29%
| align=center| 7%
| align=center| 32%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''60%'''
| align=center| 7%
|-
| [https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23936298/cnn-poll-on-gop-primary-voters.pdf CNN/SSRS]<ref name="CNN 9-5-2023" />{{efn|name=CNN-SSRS-September2023}}
| align=center| August 25–31, 2023
| align=center| 1,503 adults
| align=center| ± 3.5%
| align=center| —
| align=center| —
| align=center| —
| align=center| —
| align=center| —
| align=center| —
| align=center| 17%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''83%'''
| align=center| 2%
|-
| [https://www.washingtonpost.com/tablet/2023/09/24/sept-15-20-2023-washington-post-abc-news-poll/ Washington Post/ABC News]<ref name="Washington Post 9-29-2023" />{{efn|name=WashingtonPost-ABCNews-September2023}}
| align=center| September 15–20, 2023
| align=center| 1,006 adults
| align=center| ± 3.5%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''73%'''
| align=center| 22%
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 43%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''52%'''
| align=center| 6%
| align=center| 15%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''81%'''
| align=center| 4%
|-
| [https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000018a-e139-dd68-a3cf-fbf97b870000 Morning Consult/Politico]<ref name="Politico 9-29-2023" />{{efn|name=MorningConsult-Politico-September2023}}
| align=center| September 23–25, 2023
| align=center| 1,967 RV
| align=center| ± 2.0%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''81%'''
| align=center| 9%
| align=center| 10%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''48%'''
| align=center| 33%
| align=center| 19%
| align=center| 21%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 15%
|-
| [https://www.newsnationnow.com/polls/full-survey-views-on-gop-candidates-foreign-conflicts-and-more/ NewsNation/Decision Desk HQ]{{efn|name=NewsNation-DecisionDeskHQ-November2023}}
| align=center| November 26–27, 2023
| align=center| 3,200 RV
| align=center| ± 1.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''85%'''
| align=center| 15%
| align=center| —
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''60%'''
| align=center| 40%
| align=center| —
| align=center| 28%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''72%'''
| align=center| —
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/cbsnews_20240107_PDF1.pdf CBS News/YouGov]{{efn|name=CBSNews-YouGov-January2024-Q33}}
| align=center| January 3–5, 2024
| align=center| 2,157 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''81%'''
| align=center| 19%
| align=center| —
| align=center| 44%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''56%'''
| align=center| —
| align=center| 10%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''90%'''
| align=center| —
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_tabs_final.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo News 2-1-2024" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q27}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,594 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''81%'''
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 14%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''43%'''
| align=center| 42%
| align=center| 15%
| align=center| 12%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''80%'''
| align=center| 8%
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|+style="font-size:100%" | Trump should withdraw candidacy due to January 6 charges or not serve or be elected President if charged or convicted of a serious crime
|- valign= bottom
! style="width:230px;"| Poll source
! style="width:200px;"| Date(s)<br />administered
! class=small | Sample<br />size
! <small>MoE</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-03/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Large%20Sample%20Survey%20Issues%20Poll%20March%202023%20Topline%2003%2024%202023.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Ipsos 3-24-2023" />{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-March2023}}
| align=center| March 14–20, 2023
| align=center| 4,410 adults
| align=center| ± 1.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''87%'''
| align=center| 10%
| align=center| 3%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''59%'''
| align=center| 26%
| align=center| 15%
| align=center| 44%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''50%'''
| align=center| 6%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-04/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Trump%20Indictment%20Survey%20Topline%204.6.23_0.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Reuters 4-6-2023" /><ref name="Ipsos 4-7-2023" />{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-April2023}}
| align=center| April 5–6, 2023
| align=center| 1,004 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''82%'''
| align=center| 14%
| align=center| 4%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''49%'''
| align=center| 43%
| align=center| 9%
| align=center| 18%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''75%'''
| align=center| 6%
|-
| [https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_Trump_202304211108-1.pdf NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist]<ref name="NPR 4-25-2023" /><ref name="Marist 4-25-2023" />{{efn|name=NPR-PBSNewsHour-Marist}}
| align=center| April 17–19, 2023
| align=center| 1,291 adults
| align=center| ± 3.4%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''95%'''
| align=center| 4%
| align=center| 1%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''75%'''
| align=center| 21%
| align=center| 4%
| align=center| 34%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 3%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230530_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q50}}
| align=center| May 25–30, 2023
| align=center| 1,520 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''84%'''
| align=center| 10%
| align=center| 7%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 22%
| align=center| 15%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''43%'''
| align=center| 39%
| align=center| 18%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-06/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Trump%20Indictment%20Wave%204%20Federal%20Charges%20Topline%2006%2013%202023.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Ipsos 6-13-2023" />{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-June 2023}}
| align=center| June 9–12, 2023
| align=center| 1,005 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''80%'''
| align=center| 16%
| align=center| 4%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''51%'''
| align=center| 30%
| align=center| 20%
| align=center| 17%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''71%'''
| align=center| 12%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230717_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q29}}
| align=center| July 13–17, 2023
| align=center| 1,638 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''87%'''
| align=center| 7%
| align=center| 6%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 25%
| align=center| 12%
| align=center| 34%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''48%'''
| align=center| 18%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Trump%20Indictment%20Wave%205%20Federal%20Charges%20Topline%2008%2003%202023_0.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Reuters 8-3-2023" /><ref name="Ipsos 8-3-2023" />{{efn|name=ReutersIpsosAugust2023-TM3181Y23}}
| align=center| August 2–3, 2023
| align=center| 1,005 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''89%'''
| align=center| 7%
| align=center| 3%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''69%'''
| align=center| 12%
| align=center| 19%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''45%'''
| align=center| 35%
| align=center| 20%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us08162023_usos65.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 8-16-2023" />{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-August2023-Q31}}
| align=center| August 10–14, 2023
| align=center| 1,818 adults
| align=center| ± 2.5%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''84%'''
| align=center| 13%
| align=center| 8%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''68%'''
| align=center| 25%
| align=center| 7%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''58%'''
| align=center| 28%
| align=center| 14%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230821_yahoo_results.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q39}}
| align=center| August 17–21, 2023
| align=center| 1,665 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''89%'''
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 5%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''56%'''
| align=center| 29%
| align=center| 15%
| align=center| 29%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''53%'''
| align=center| 18%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-09/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Large%20Sample%20Poll%20%235%20Topline%2009%2020%202023.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Ipsos 9-21-2023" />{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-September2023}}
| align=center| September 8–14, 2023
| align=center| 4,415 adults
| align=center| ± 1.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''88%'''
| align=center| 7%
| align=center| 5%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''57%'''
| align=center| 19%
| align=center| 24%
| align=center| 30%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''52%'''
| align=center| 19%
|-
| [https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_202309291156.pdf NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist]<ref name="PBS NewsHour 12-19-2023" /><ref name="Marist 10-4-2023" />{{efn|name=NPR-PBSNewsHour-Marist}}
| align=center| September 25–28, 2023
| align=center| 1,256 adults
| align=center| ± 3.5%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''94%'''
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 1%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''67%'''
| align=center| 32%
| align=center| 1%
| align=center| 30%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''67%'''
| align=center| 3%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-12/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Large%20Sample%20Survey%20%236%20Topline%2012%2013%202023.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Reuters 12-11-2023" />{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-December2023}}
| align=center| December 5–11, 2023
| align=center| 4,411 adults
| align=center| ± 1.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''89%'''
| align=center| 8%
| align=center| 3%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''69%'''
| align=center| 19%
| align=center| 13%
| align=center| 37%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''57%'''
| align=center| 6%
|-
| [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/19/us/elections/times-siena-national-poll-toplines.html New York Times/Siena College]<ref>{{cite news|last1=Haberman|first1=Maggie|last2=Feuer|first2=Alan|last3=Igielnik|first3=Ruth|date=December 20, 2023|title=Nearly a Quarter of Trump Voters Say He Shouldn't Be Nominated if Convicted|work=The New York Times|publisher=The News Times Company|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/20/us/politics/trump-poll-conviction-trials.html|access-date=January 25, 2024}}</ref>{{efn|"Which statement comes closer to your view on what should happen if Donald Trump wins the most votes in the Republican primary and is then convicted of a crime? Donald Trump should/should NOT be the Republican nominee"}}
| align=center| December 10–14, 2023
| align=center| 380 RV
| align=center| —
| align=center| —
| align=center| —
| align=center| —
| align=center| —
| align=center| —
| align=center| —
| align=center| 32%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''62%'''
| align=center| 7%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20231218_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo! News 12-19-2023" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q25}}
| align=center| December 14–18, 2023
| align=center| 1,533 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''91%'''
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 4%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''61%'''
| align=center| 25%
| align=center| 14%
| align=center| 35%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''50%'''
| align=center| 15%
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2024-01/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Large%20Sample%20Survey%20%23%201%20January%202024%20Topline.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Ipsos 1-16-2024" />{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-January2024}}
| align=center| January 3–9, 2024
| align=center| 4,677 adults
| align=center| ± 1.5%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''91%'''
| align=center| 3%
| align=center| 6%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''55%'''
| align=center| 14%
| align=center| 30%
| align=center| 28%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''43%'''
| align=center| 29%
|-
| [https://news.gallup.com/poll/609344/felonies-old-age-heavily-count-against-candidates.aspx Gallup]{{efn|name=Gallup}}
| align=center| January 2–22, 2024
| align=center| 506 adults
| align=center| ± 6.0%
| align=center| —
| align=center| 15%
| align=center| —
| align=center| —
| align=center| 21%
| align=center| —
| align=center| —
| align=center| 35%
| align=center| —
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_tabs_final.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo News 2-1-2024" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q15}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,594 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''86%'''
| align=center| 8%
| align=center| 6%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''51%'''
| align=center| 34%
| align=center| 15%
| align=center| 19%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''65%'''
| align=center| 16%
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|+style="font-size:100%" | Conspiring to overturn the results of a presidential election is a serious crime
|- valign= bottom
! style="width:190px;"| Poll source
! style="width:200px;"| Date(s)<br />administered
! class=small | Sample<br />size
! <small>MoE</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230530_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48c}}
| align=center| May 25–30, 2023
| align=center| 1,520 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''85%'''
| align=center| 7%
| align=center| 8%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''64%'''
| align=center| 20%
| align=center| 16%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''50%'''
| align=center| 31%
| align=center| 19%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230717_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24c}}
| align=center| July 13–17, 2023
| align=center| 1,638 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''88%'''
| align=center| 6%
| align=center| 6%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''70%'''
| align=center| 16%
| align=center| 14%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''48%'''
| align=center| 29%
| align=center| 23%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us08162023_usos65.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 8-16-2023" />{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32}}
| align=center| August 10–14, 2023
| align=center| 1,818 adults
| align=center| ± 2.5%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''94%'''
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 1%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''66%'''
| align=center| 30%
| align=center| 4%
| align=center| 30%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''66%'''
| align=center| 4%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230821_yahoo_results.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q29c}}
| align=center| August 17–21, 2023
| align=center| 1,665 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''93%'''
| align=center| 4%
| align=center| 3%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''67%'''
| align=center| 20%
| align=center| 13%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''47%'''
| align=center| 32%
| align=center| 21%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us09132023_uscj98.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 9-13-2023" />{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-September2023}}
| align=center| September 7–11, 2023
| align=center| 1,910 adults
| align=center| ± 2.2%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''97%'''
| align=center| 2%
| align=center| 1%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''64%'''
| align=center| 32%
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 31%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''65%'''
| align=center| 4%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20231218_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo! News 12-19-2023" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q24c}}
| align=center| December 14–18, 2023
| align=center| 1,533 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''89%'''
| align=center| 6%
| align=center| 5%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''66%'''
| align=center| 18%
| align=center| 16%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''43%'''
| align=center| 35%
| align=center| 23%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20231221.pdf YouGov]{{efn|name=YouGov-December2023-Q4}}
| align=center| December 21–30, 2023
| align=center| 1,000 adults
| align=center| ± 4.0%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''92%'''
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 2%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''65%'''
| align=center| 20%
| align=center| 14%
| align=center| 40%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''50%'''
| align=center| 11%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_tabs_final.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo News 2-1-2024" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q12}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,594 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''83%'''
| align=center| 4%
| align=center| 5%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''57%'''
| align=center| 20%
| align=center| 14%
| align=center| 32%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''33%'''
| align=center| 26%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20240125.pdf YouGov]{{efn|name=YouGov-January2024-Q5}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,000 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''85%'''
| align=center| 8%
| align=center| 7%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''60%'''
| align=center| 23%
| align=center| 16%
| align=center| 43%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''51%'''
| align=center| 6%
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|+style="font-size:100%" | Attempting to obstruct the certification of a presidential election is a serious crime
|- valign= bottom
! style="width:190px;"| Poll source
! style="width:200px;"| Date(s)<br />administered
! class=small | Sample<br />size
! <small>MoE</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230530_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48d}}
| align=center| May 25–30, 2023
| align=center| 1,520 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''82%'''
| align=center| 9%
| align=center| 8%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 22%
| align=center| 15%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''43%'''
| align=center| 36%
| align=center| 21%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230717_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24d}}
| align=center| July 13–17, 2023
| align=center| 1,638 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''89%'''
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 6%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''65%'''
| align=center| 18%
| align=center| 17%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''45%'''
| align=center| 32%
| align=center| 23%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us08162023_usos65.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 8-16-2023" />{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32}}
| align=center| August 10–14, 2023
| align=center| 1,818 adults
| align=center| ± 2.5%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''94%'''
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 1%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''66%'''
| align=center| 30%
| align=center| 4%
| align=center| 30%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''66%'''
| align=center| 4%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230821_yahoo_results.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q29d}}
| align=center| August 17–21, 2023
| align=center| 1,665 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''92%'''
| align=center| 4%
| align=center| 5%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''68%'''
| align=center| 20%
| align=center| 12%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''47%'''
| align=center| 33%
| align=center| 21%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us09132023_uscj98.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 9-13-2023" />{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-September2023}}
| align=center| September 7–11, 2023
| align=center| 1,910 adults
| align=center| ± 2.2%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''97%'''
| align=center| 2%
| align=center| 1%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''64%'''
| align=center| 32%
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 31%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''65%'''
| align=center| 4%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20231218_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo! News 12-19-2023" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q24d}}
| align=center| December 14–18, 2023
| align=center| 1,533 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''89%'''
| align=center| 6%
| align=center| 5%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''62%'''
| align=center| 21%
| align=center| 17%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''39%'''
| align=center| 35%
| align=center| 25%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20231221.pdf YouGov]{{efn|name=YouGov-December2023-Q4}}
| align=center| December 21–30, 2023
| align=center| 1,000 adults
| align=center| ± 4.0%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''92%'''
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 2%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''65%'''
| align=center| 20%
| align=center| 14%
| align=center| 40%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''50%'''
| align=center| 11%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_tabs_final.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo News 2-1-2024" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q12}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,594 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''80%'''
| align=center| 4%
| align=center| 5%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''52%'''
| align=center| 20%
| align=center| 14%
| align=center| 27%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''33%'''
| align=center| 26%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20240125.pdf YouGov]{{efn|name=YouGov-January2024-Q5}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,000 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''85%'''
| align=center| 8%
| align=center| 7%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''60%'''
| align=center| 23%
| align=center| 16%
| align=center| 43%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''51%'''
| align=center| 6%
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|+style="font-size:100%" | Inciting or aiding an insurrection against the federal government is a serious crime
|- valign= bottom
! style="width:190px;"| Poll source
! style="width:200px;"| Date(s)<br />administered
! class=small | Sample<br />size
! <small>MoE</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230530_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48e}}
| align=center| May 25–30, 2023
| align=center| 1,520 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''81%'''
| align=center| 10%
| align=center| 9%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''66%'''
| align=center| 16%
| align=center| 18%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''47%'''
| align=center| 28%
| align=center| 25%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230717_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24e}}
| align=center| July 13–17, 2023
| align=center| 1,638 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''87%'''
| align=center| 6%
| align=center| 6%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''70%'''
| align=center| 14%
| align=center| 16%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''50%'''
| align=center| 27%
| align=center| 23%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us08162023_usos65.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 8-16-2023" />{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32}}
| align=center| August 10–14, 2023
| align=center| 1,818 adults
| align=center| ± 2.5%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''94%'''
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 1%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''66%'''
| align=center| 30%
| align=center| 4%
| align=center| 30%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''66%'''
| align=center| 4%
|-
| [https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us09132023_uscj98.pdf Quinnipiac University]<ref name="Quinnipiac 9-13-2023" />{{efn|name=Quinnipiac-September2023}}
| align=center| September 7–11, 2023
| align=center| 1,910 adults
| align=center| ± 2.2%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''97%'''
| align=center| 2%
| align=center| 1%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''64%'''
| align=center| 32%
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 31%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''65%'''
| align=center| 4%
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|+style="font-size:100%" | January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was not justified and was a criminal act
|- valign= bottom
! style="width:190px;"| Poll source
! style="width:200px;"| Date(s)<br />administered
! class=small | Sample<br />size
! <small>MoE</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2022-08/Reuters%20News%20Issue%20Poll%208%20-%20Political%20Violence%20Topline%20Aug%2016-17%202022.pdf Reuters/Ipsos]<ref name="Ipsos 8-22-2022" />{{efn|name=Reuters-Ipsos-August2022}}
| align=center| August 16–17, 2022
| align=center| 1,005 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''84%'''
| align=center| 16%
| align=center| —
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''71%'''
| align=center| 29%
| align=center| —
| align=center| 47%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''53%'''
| align=center| —
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230821_yahoo_results.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-August2023}}
| align=center| August 17–21, 2023
| align=center| 1,665 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''87%'''
| align=center| 4%
| align=center| 9%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''66%'''
| align=center| 12%
| align=center| 22%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''53%'''
| align=center| 19%
| align=center| 28%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/January_6th_Capitol_Takeover_poll_results.pdf YouGov]{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-January2024}}
| align=center| January 2–4, 2024
| align=center| 1,000 adults
| align=center| ± 4.1%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''92%'''
| align=center| 5%
| align=center| 2%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''66%'''
| align=center| 13%
| align=center| 21%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 22%
| align=center| 15%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/cbsnews_20240107_PDF1.pdf CBS News/YouGov]{{efn|name=CBSNews-YouGov-January2024-Q23}}
| align=center| January 3–5, 2024
| align=center| 2,157 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''84%'''
| align=center| 16%
| align=center| —
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''82%'''
| align=center| 18%
| align=center| —
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''70%'''
| align=center| 30%
| align=center| —
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_tabs_final.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo News 2-1-2024" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q22}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,594 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''79%'''
| align=center| 9%
| align=center| 12%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''61%'''
| align=center| 14%
| align=center| 25%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''48%'''
| align=center| 20%
| align=center| 32%
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|+style="font-size:100%" | Trial in federal obstruction case against Trump should occur before the general election in 2024
|- valign= bottom
! style="width:190px;"| Poll source
! style="width:200px;"| Date(s) administered
! class=small | Sample size
! <small>MoE</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>DEM<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>IND<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% agree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% disagree</small>
! style="width:100px;"| <small>GOP<br>% no<br>opinion</small>
|-
| [https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/August%202023%20Politico%20Magazine%20Survey%20Trump%20Indictments.pdf Politico/Ipsos]<ref name="Politico 8-25-2023" /><ref name="Ipsos 8-25-2023" />{{efn|name=Politico-Ipsos-August2023}}
| align=center| August 18–21, 2023
| align=center| 1,032 adults
| align=center| ± 3.2%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''89%'''
| align=center| 3%
| align=center| 8%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''63%'''
| align=center| 14%
| align=center| 22%
| align=center| 33%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''45%'''
| align=center| 21%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20231218_yahoo_tabs.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo! News 12-19-2023" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q28}}
| align=center| December 14–18, 2023
| align=center| 1,533 adults
| align=center| ± 2.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''87%'''
| align=center| 6%
| align=center| 7%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''58%'''
| align=center| 22%
| align=center| 20%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''40%'''
| align=center| 37%
| align=center| 23%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20231221.pdf YouGov]{{efn|name=YouGov-December2023-Q8}}
| align=center| December 21–30, 2023
| align=center| 1,000 adults
| align=center| ± 4.0%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''64%'''
| align=center| 6%
| align=center| 31%
| align=center| 39%
| align=center| 15%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''47%'''
| align=center| 22%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''40%'''
| align=center| 39%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_tabs_final.pdf Yahoo! News/YouGov]<ref name="Yahoo News 2-1-2024" />{{efn|name=YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q17}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,594 adults
| align=center| ± 2.7%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''85%'''
| align=center| 8%
| align=center| 8%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''62%'''
| align=center| 21%
| align=center| 17%
| align=center| 31%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''43%'''
| align=center| 26%
|-
| [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20240125.pdf YouGov]{{efn|name=YouGov-January2024-Q9}}
| align=center| January 25–29, 2024
| align=center| 1,000 adults
| align=center| ± 3.8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''60%'''
| align=center| 22%
| align=center| 38%
| align=center| 39%
| align=center| 16%
| {{party shading/Independent}} align=center| '''45%'''
| align=center| 21%
| {{party shading/Republican}} align=center| '''43%'''
| align=center| 36%
|}
== Reactions from other candidates ==
Democratic presidential candidates [[Marianne Williamson]] and [[Dean Phillips]] criticized the Colorado Supreme Court decision to remove another candidate from the ballot.<ref>{{cite news|newspaper=The Hill|title=Long-shot Biden challengers say Trump ballot bans 'dangerous' to democracy|author=Tara Suter|date=January 13, 2024|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4407017-long-shot-biden-challengers-trump-ballot-bans-dangerous/}}</ref> The other Republican candidates at the time – [[Chris Christie]], [[Ron DeSantis]], [[Nikki Haley]], and [[Vivek Ramaswamy]] – all criticized the decision with Christie stating "I do not believe Donald Trump should be prevented from being president of the United States, by any court; I think he should be prevented from being the president of the United States by the voters of this country", and Haley stating "the last thing we want is judges telling us who can and can't be on the ballot". Ramaswamy stated he would withdraw from the Colorado primary if the court decision stood.<ref>{{cite news|newspaper=Deseret News|location=Salt Lake City|title=Keep Trump on the ballot, his GOP challengers say|author=Samuel Benson|date=December 20, 2023|url=https://www.deseret.com/2023/12/20/24010070/trump-on-the-ballot-his-gop-challengers-say}}</ref>
== Violent incidents ==
There have been widespread [[Doxing|doxxing]], [[swatting]], and violent threats made against politicians who have attempted to remove Trump from the ballot. On December 29, 2023, Bellows was swatted.<ref name=":0" /> The incidents are part of the broader [[2023 swatting of American politicians]].<ref name=":0" />
In the early hours of January 2, 2024, a man broke into the [[Colorado Supreme Court]], opened fire, then surrendered to police. No one was injured, but the building was damaged. Though multiple threats had been made against the four Colorado justices who ruled to disqualify Trump, the [[Colorado State Patrol]] suggested that this man may have acted alone. The man's motivations were not immediately publicized.<ref>{{Cite web|last1=Andone|first1=Dakin|last2=Boyette|first2=Chris |last3=Webb |first3=Rachel |date=January 2, 2024 |title=Man breaks into Colorado Supreme Court overnight and opens fire, police say|url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/02/us/colorado-supreme-court-arrest/index.html |access-date=January 2, 2024 |website=CNN |language=en |archive-date=January 2, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240102182445/https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/02/us/colorado-supreme-court-arrest/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
== Footnotes ==
{{notelist}}
== References ==
{{Reflist|refs=
<ref name="Threat">{{multiref2
|1={{Cite news |last1=Bacon |first1=Perry Jr |date=December 30, 2023 |title=Yes, Trump should be removed from the ballot |language=en-US |newspaper=Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/29/trump-ballot-maine-colorado/ |access-date=December 30, 2023 |issn=0190-8286 |archive-date=December 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231230072048/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/29/trump-ballot-maine-colorado/ |url-status=live }}
|2={{Cite web |last1=Young |first1=Quentin |date=November 30, 2023 |title=The time to reject autocracy is now|url=https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/11/30/the-time-to-reject-autocracy-is-now/ |website=Colorado Newsline |access-date=December 31, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=December 31, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231231044552/https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/11/30/the-time-to-reject-autocracy-is-now/ |url-status=live }}
|3={{Cite web |last1=Graber |first1=Mark A. |date=November 29, 2023 |title=Donald Trump and the Jefferson Davis Problem|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/opinion/trump-president-candidate-constitution.html|website=The New York Times |access-date=December 31, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=December 31, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231231045727/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/opinion/trump-president-candidate-constitution.html |url-status=live }}
|4={{Cite web |last1=Somin |first1=Ilya |date=December 1, 2023 |title=Yes, Trump Is Disqualified from Office|url=https://www.cato.org/commentary/yes-trump-disqualified-office |website=CATO Institute |access-date=December 31, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=December 31, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231231060837/https://www.cato.org/commentary/yes-trump-disqualified-office |url-status=live }}
|5={{Cite web |last1=Kahn |first1=Paul W. |date=December 29, 2023 |title=Progressives need to get real about Trump, democracy and the Supreme Court|url=https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4381899-progressives-need-to-get-real-about-trump-democracy-and-the-supreme-court/ |website=The Hill|access-date=December 31, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=December 31, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231231062852/https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4381899-progressives-need-to-get-real-about-trump-democracy-and-the-supreme-court/ |url-status=live }}
|6={{Cite web|last1=Zirin|first1=James D. |date=January 2, 2024 |title=Will Trump's disqualification case be Bush v. Gore for 2024?|url=https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4384285-will-trumps-disqualification-case-be-bush-v-gore-for-2024/|website=The Hill|access-date=January 3, 2024 |language=en |archive-date=January 2, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240102155254/https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4384285-will-trumps-disqualification-case-be-bush-v-gore-for-2024/|url-status=live }}
|7={{Cite web |last1=Luttig |first1=J. Michael |last2=Tribe |first2=Laurence H. |date=August 19, 2023 |title=The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/ |website=The Atlantic |access-date=January 4, 2024 |language=en |archive-date=August 20, 2023 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20230820122539/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/ |url-status=live }}
|8={{Cite web|last1=French|first1=David|date=January 4, 2024|title=The Case for Disqualifying Trump Is Strong|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/04/opinion/the-case-for-disqualifying-trump-is-strong.html|website=The New York Times|access-date=January 5, 2024|language=en|archive-date=January 5, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240105010605/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/04/opinion/the-case-for-disqualifying-trump-is-strong.html|url-status=live}}
}}</ref>
}}
== Works cited ==
* {{cite report|last1=Elsea|first1=Jennifer K.|last2=Jones|first2=Juria L.|last3=Whitaker|first3=L. Paige|date=January 10, 2024|title=Disqualification of a Candidate for the Presidency, Part II: Examining Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment as It Applies to Ballot Access|publisher=Congressional Research Service|ref={{sfnRef|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024b}}|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11096|access-date=January 14, 2024}}
* {{cite report|last1=Elsea|first1=Jennifer K.|last2=Jones|first2=Juria L.|last3=Whitaker|first3=L. Paige|date=January 9, 2024|title=Disqualification of a Candidate for the Presidency, Part I: Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment as It Applies to the Presidency|publisher=Congressional Research Service|ref={{sfnRef|Elsea|Jones|Whitaker|2024a}}|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11094|access-date=January 14, 2024}}
* {{cite web|last1=Lash|first1=Kurt T.|date=December 28, 2023|title=The Meaning and Ambiguity of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment|ssrn=4591838|doi=10.2139/ssrn.4591838|s2cid=264902188 |url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4591838|access-date=January 2, 2024}}
* {{cite report|last1=Cole|first1=Jared P.|last2=Garvey|first2=Todd|date=December 6, 2023|title=Impeachment and the Constitution|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46013|access-date=December 29, 2023}}
* {{cite web|last1=Graber|first1=Mark|date=October 4, 2023|title=Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment: Our Questions, Their Answers|ssrn=4591133|doi=10.2139/ssrn.4591133|s2cid=263687575|url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4591133|ref={{sfnRef|Graber|2023a}}|access-date=January 2, 2024|archive-date=December 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231230060526/https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4591133|url-status=live}}
* {{cite report|title=Write-In Voting|date=October 2023|publisher=[[Election Assistance Commission]]|url=https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/Write_In_Voting_Designed_Report_508.pdf|ref={{sfnRef|Election Assistance Commission|2023}}|access-date=December 22, 2023}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Blackman |first1=Josh |last2=Tillman |first2=Seth Barrett |date=September 12, 2023 |title=Sweeping and Forcing the President into Section 3: A Response to William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen |journal=[[Texas Review of Law and Politics]] |publisher=[[University of Texas School of Law]] |volume=28 |doi=10.2139/ssrn.4568771 |ssrn-access=free |doi-access=free |ssrn=4568771|s2cid=262183775 }}
* {{cite journal |last1=Baude |first1=William |last2=Paulsen |first2=Michael Stokes |date=August 14, 2023 |title=The Sweep and Force of Section Three |ssrn-access=free |journal=[[University of Pennsylvania Law Review]] |publisher=[[University of Pennsylvania Law School]] |url=https://ssrn.com/abstract=4532751 |ssrn=4532751|access-date=December 29, 2023}}
* {{cite report |last1=Berris |first1=Peter G. |date=August 3, 2023 |title=Overview of the Indictment of Former President Trump Related to the 2020 Election |publisher=Congressional Research Service |url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11016|access-date=August 23, 2023}}
* {{cite report|last1=Brannon|first1=Valerie C.|date=March 10, 2023|title=Statutory Interpretation: Theories, Tools, and Trends|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45153|access-date=December 31, 2023|archive-date=July 22, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230722162435/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45153|url-status=live}}
* {{Cite journal |last1=Vlahoplus |first1=John| date=2023 |title=Insurrection, Disqualification, and the Presidency |journal=Brit. J. Am. Legal Stud. |doi=10.2478/bjals-2023-0015 |ssrn=4440157 |ssrn-access=free |language=en|doi-access=free }}
* {{cite book|editor-last=Amado|editor-first=Alexandra|year=2022|title=Election Law Manual|publisher=[[National Center for State Courts]]/[[College of William & Mary]]|edition=2nd|url=https://www.electionlawprogram.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/83833/ELM_Fall_22.pdf|access-date=January 8, 2024}}
* {{cite report |url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569 |title=The Insurrection Bar to Office: Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment |last1=Elsea |first1=Jennifer K. |date=September 7, 2022 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |access-date=September 21, 2023}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Magliocca |first1=Gerard N. |year=2021 |title=Amnesty and Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment |url=https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/221946/02%20Magliocca.pdf |journal=Constitutional Commentary |publisher=[[University of Minnesota Law School]] |volume=36 |issue=1 |hdl=11299/221946 |hdl-access=free |ssrn-access=free |pages=87–130 |doi=10.2139/ssrn.3748639 |doi-access=free |ssrn=3748639 |access-date=December 8, 2023 |archive-date=August 29, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230829062946/https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/221946/02%20Magliocca.pdf |url-status=live }}
* {{cite journal|last1=Lynch|first1=Myles S.|year=2021|title=Disloyalty & Disqualification: Reconstructing Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment|journal=William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal|publisher=[[William & Mary Law School]]|volume=30|issue=1|pages=153–220|doi=|url=https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol30/iss1/5|access-date=December 28, 2023|archive-date=September 3, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230903231513/https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol30/iss1/5/|url-status=live}}
* {{cite journal|last1=Blackman|first1=Josh|last2=Tillman|first2=Seth Barrett|year=2021|title=Is the President an 'Officer of the United States' for Purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment?|journal=[[New York University Journal of Law & Liberty]]|publisher=[[New York University School of Law]]|volume=15|issue=1|ssrn=3978095|url=https://ssrn.com/abstract=3978095|ref={{sfnRef|Blackman|Tillman|2021a}}|ssrn-access=free }}
* {{cite report|last1=Rybicki|first1=Elizabeth|last2=Whitaker|first2=L. Paige|date=December 8, 2020|title=Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Session, Including Objections by Members of Congress|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32717|access-date=July 5, 2023}}
* {{cite report|last1=Neale|first1=Thomas H.|date=October 9, 2020|title=Presidential Elections: Vacancies in Major-Party Candidacies and the Position of President-Elect|publisher=Congressional Research Service|ref={{sfnRef|Neale|2020c}}|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44648|access-date=July 5, 2023}}
* {{cite report|last1=Neale|first1=Thomas H.|date=October 6, 2020|title=Contingent Election of the President and Vice President by Congress: Perspectives and Contemporary Analysis|publisher=Congressional Research Service|ref={{sfnRef|Neale|2020b}}|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R40504|access-date=July 5, 2023}}
* {{cite report|last1=Neale|first1=Thomas H.|date=July 14, 2020|title=Presidential Succession: Perspectives and Contemporary Issues for Congress|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46450|ref={{sfnRef|Neale|2020a}}|access-date=July 19, 2023}}
* {{cite report|last1=Shelly|first1=Jacob D.|date=July 10, 2020|title=Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Electoral College: States May Restrict Faithless Electors|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10515|access-date=July 10, 2023}}
* {{cite report|last1=Neale|first1=Thomas H.|last2=Nolan|first2=Andrew|title=The National Popular Vote (NPV) Initiative: Direct Election of the President by Interstate Compact|publisher=Congressional Research Service|date=October 28, 2019|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43823/9|access-date=November 10, 2019}}
* {{cite report|last1=Murrill|first1=Brandon J.|date=March 15, 2018|title=Modes of Constitutional Interpretation|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45129|access-date=December 20, 2023}}
* {{cite journal|last1=Mascott|first1=Jennifer L.|year=2018|title=Who Are 'Officers of the United States'?|journal=[[Stanford Law Review]]|publisher=[[Stanford Law School]]|volume=70|issue=2|pages=443–564|url=https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/officers-united-states/|access-date=January 5, 2024|archive-date=January 5, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240105140744/https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/officers-united-states/|url-status=live}}
* {{cite book|last=Nicoletti|first=Cynthia|year=2017|title=Secession on Trial: The Treason Prosecution of Jefferson Davis|place=New York|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|isbn=978-1108415521}}
* {{cite report|title=Preserving Our Institutions: The Continuity of the Presidency|date=June 2009|publisher=Continuity of Government Commission|url=https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_continuity_of_government.pdf|ref={{sfnRef|Continuity of Government Commission|2009}}|access-date=May 18, 2023}}
* {{cite book|title=The Federalist Papers|editor-first=Clinton|editor-last=Rossiter|editor-link=Clinton Rossiter|publisher=[[New American Library|Signet Classics]]|year=2003|orig-year=1961|isbn=978-0-451-52881-0}}
* {{cite report|last1=Gamboa|first1=Anthony H.|title=Elections: The Scope of Congressional Authority in Election Administration|date=March 13, 2001|publisher=[[Government Accountability Office|General Accounting Office]]|url=https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-01-470.pdf|access-date=June 8, 2023}}
* {{Cite web |title=Trump v Anderson - Certiorari Granted |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/010524zr2_886b.pdf |access-date=January 5, 2024 |website=scotus.gov}}
* {{cite journal|title=Third Session of the 42nd Congress|date=February 12, 1873|journal=[[United States Senate Journal]]|publisher=[[Library of Congress]]|volume=68|url=http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(sj06845))|ref={{sfnRef|Senate Journal 42(3)}}|access-date=July 1, 2023}}
=== Further reading ===
* {{cite episode|title=Democracy on Trial|series=Frontline|series-link=Frontline (American TV program)|network=[[PBS]]|station=[[WGBH-TV]]|season=42|number=11|url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/democracy-on-trial/|access-date=February 3, 2024}}
{{January 6 United States Capitol attack navbox}}
{{2024 United States presidential election}}
{{Donald Trump}}
[[Category:2024 controversies in the United States]]
[[Category:2024 United States presidential election]]
[[Category:Aftermath of the January 6 United States Capitol attack]]
[[Category:Donald Trump controversies]]
[[Category:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign]]
[[Category:Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution]]
[[Category:Controversies of the 2024 United States presidential election]]' |
Parsed HTML source of the new revision (new_html) | '<div class="mw-content-ltr mw-parser-output" lang="en" dir="ltr"><div class="shortdescription nomobile noexcerpt noprint searchaux" style="display:none">2023–24 U.S. legal and political dispute</div>
<p class="mw-empty-elt">
</p>
<figure class="mw-default-size" typeof="mw:File/Thumb"><a href="/info/en/?search=File:Trump_2024_state_ballot_eligibility_map.svg" class="mw-file-description"><img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Trump_2024_state_ballot_eligibility_map.svg/260px-Trump_2024_state_ballot_eligibility_map.svg.png" decoding="async" width="260" height="161" class="mw-file-element" srcset="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Trump_2024_state_ballot_eligibility_map.svg/390px-Trump_2024_state_ballot_eligibility_map.svg.png 1.5x, //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Trump_2024_state_ballot_eligibility_map.svg/520px-Trump_2024_state_ballot_eligibility_map.svg.png 2x" data-file-width="959" data-file-height="593" /></a><figcaption>Eligibility of Donald Trump on GOP primary ballots by state prior to <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_v._Anderson" title="Trump v. Anderson">Trump v. Anderson</a></i>: <style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r981673959">.mw-parser-output .legend{page-break-inside:avoid;break-inside:avoid-column}.mw-parser-output .legend-color{display:inline-block;min-width:1.25em;height:1.25em;line-height:1.25;margin:1px 0;text-align:center;border:1px solid black;background-color:transparent;color:black}.mw-parser-output .legend-text{}</style><div class="legend"><span class="legend-color mw-no-invert" style="background-color:#00bb00; color:black;"> </span> Case dismissed by state supreme court</div>yuor mom is faaat<link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r981673959"><div class="legend"><span class="legend-color mw-no-invert" style="background-color:#90EE90; color:black;"> </span> Case dismissed by lower court</div> <link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r981673959"><div class="legend"><span class="legend-color mw-no-invert" style="background-color:#cc9933; color:black;"> </span> Decision ruled that Trump is ineligible; stayed, reversed by United States Supreme Court</div> <link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r981673959"><div class="legend"><span class="legend-color mw-no-invert" style="background-color:#666666; color:white;"> </span> Lawsuit filed</div></figcaption></figure>
<style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r1129693374">.mw-parser-output .hlist dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul{margin:0;padding:0}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt,.mw-parser-output .hlist li{margin:0;display:inline}.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul ul{display:inline}.mw-parser-output .hlist .mw-empty-li{display:none}.mw-parser-output .hlist dt::after{content:": "}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li::after{content:" · ";font-weight:bold}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li:last-child::after{content:none}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li li:first-child::before{content:" (";font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd li:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt li:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li li:last-child::after{content:")";font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol{counter-reset:listitem}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol>li{counter-increment:listitem}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol>li::before{content:" "counter(listitem)"\a0 "}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd ol>li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt ol>li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li ol>li:first-child::before{content:" ("counter(listitem)"\a0 "}</style><style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r1045330069">.mw-parser-output .sidebar{width:22em;float:right;clear:right;margin:0.5em 0 1em 1em;background:#f8f9fa;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%;border-collapse:collapse;display:table}body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output .sidebar{display:table!important;float:right!important;margin:0.5em 0 1em 1em!important}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-subgroup{width:100%;margin:0;border-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-left{float:left;clear:left;margin:0.5em 1em 1em 0}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-none{float:none;clear:both;margin:0.5em 1em 1em 0}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-outer-title{padding:0 0.4em 0.2em;font-size:125%;line-height:1.2em;font-weight:bold}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-top-image{padding:0.4em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-top-caption,.mw-parser-output .sidebar-pretitle-with-top-image,.mw-parser-output .sidebar-caption{padding:0.2em 0.4em 0;line-height:1.2em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-pretitle{padding:0.4em 0.4em 0;line-height:1.2em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-title,.mw-parser-output .sidebar-title-with-pretitle{padding:0.2em 0.8em;font-size:145%;line-height:1.2em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-title-with-pretitle{padding:0.1em 0.4em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-image{padding:0.2em 0.4em 0.4em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-heading{padding:0.1em 0.4em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-content{padding:0 0.5em 0.4em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-content-with-subgroup{padding:0.1em 0.4em 0.2em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-above,.mw-parser-output .sidebar-below{padding:0.3em 0.8em;font-weight:bold}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-collapse .sidebar-above,.mw-parser-output .sidebar-collapse .sidebar-below{border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-bottom:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-navbar{text-align:right;font-size:115%;padding:0 0.4em 0.4em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-list-title{padding:0 0.4em;text-align:left;font-weight:bold;line-height:1.6em;font-size:105%}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-list-title-c{padding:0 0.4em;text-align:center;margin:0 3.3em}@media(max-width:720px){body.mediawiki .mw-parser-output .sidebar{width:100%!important;clear:both;float:none!important;margin-left:0!important;margin-right:0!important}}</style><style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r1157919884">.mw-parser-output .sidebar-person{border:4px double #d69d36}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-person .sidebar-title{font-size:110%;padding:0;line-height:150%}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-person-title-image{background-color:#002466;vertical-align:middle;padding:5px}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-person-title{background-color:#002466;vertical-align:middle;padding:6px;width:100%}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-person-title>div{font-size:88%;line-height:normal}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-person .sidebar-content{padding:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-person .sidebar-navbar{text-align:center}</style><style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r1214851843">.mw-parser-output .hidden-begin{box-sizing:border-box;width:100%;padding:5px;border:none;font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .hidden-title{font-weight:bold;line-height:1.6;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .hidden-content{text-align:left}@media all and (max-width:500px){.mw-parser-output .hidden-begin{width:auto!important;clear:none!important;float:none!important}}</style><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1214851843"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1214851843"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1214851843"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1214851843"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1214851843"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1214851843"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1214851843"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1214851843"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1214851843"><style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r1217074988">html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output div:not(.notheme)>.tmp-color,html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output p>.tmp-color,html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output table:not(.notheme) .tmp-color{color:inherit!important}@media(prefers-color-scheme:dark){html.skin-theme-clientpref-os .mw-parser-output div:not(.notheme)>.tmp-color,html.skin-theme-clientpref-os .mw-parser-output p>.tmp-color,html.skin-theme-clientpref-os .mw-parser-output table:not(.notheme) .tmp-color{color:inherit!important}}</style><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1214851843"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1214851843"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1214851843"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1214851843"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1214851843"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1214851843"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1214851843"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1214851843"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1214851843"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1214851843"><table class="sidebar nomobile sidebar-person vcard hlist" style="border-color: #d69d36"><tbody><tr><th class="sidebar-title"><table><tbody><tr>
<td class="sidebar-person-title-image" style="background-color:#002466;color:inherit;"><span class="mw-image-border" typeof="mw:File"><a href="/info/en/?search=File:Donald_Trump_official_portrait_(cropped).jpg" class="mw-file-description"><img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Donald_Trump_official_portrait_%28cropped%29.jpg/75px-Donald_Trump_official_portrait_%28cropped%29.jpg" decoding="async" width="75" height="103" class="mw-file-element" srcset="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Donald_Trump_official_portrait_%28cropped%29.jpg/113px-Donald_Trump_official_portrait_%28cropped%29.jpg 1.5x, //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Donald_Trump_official_portrait_%28cropped%29.jpg/150px-Donald_Trump_official_portrait_%28cropped%29.jpg 2x" data-file-width="1520" data-file-height="2096" /></a></span></td>
<td class="sidebar-person-title" style="background-color:#002466;color: #FFF;"><div><span class="tmp-color" style="color: #FFF">This article is part of <br />a series about</span></div><span class="vcard"><span class="fn"><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump" title="Donald Trump"><span style="color: #FFF; text-decoration: inherit;">Donald Trump</span></a></span></span></td>
</tr></tbody></table></th></tr><tr><td class="sidebar-content">
<hr />
<div class="hidden-begin mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style=""><div class="hidden-title skin-nightmode-reset-color" style="text-align:center;">Business and personal</div><div class="hidden-content mw-collapsible-content" style="text-align:center;">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Business_career_of_Donald_Trump" title="Business career of Donald Trump">Business career</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=The_Trump_Organization" title="The Trump Organization">The Trump Organization</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Wealth_of_Donald_Trump" title="Wealth of Donald Trump">wealth</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Tax_returns_of_Donald_Trump" title="Tax returns of Donald Trump">tax returns</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Media_career_of_Donald_Trump" title="Media career of Donald Trump">Media career</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=The_Apprentice_(American_TV_series)" title="The Apprentice (American TV series)"><i>The Apprentice</i></a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Bibliography_of_Donald_Trump" title="Bibliography of Donald Trump">bibliography</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_filmography" title="Donald Trump filmography">filmography</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_things_named_after_Donald_Trump" title="List of things named after Donald Trump">Eponyms</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Family_of_Donald_Trump" title="Family of Donald Trump">Family</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_J._Trump_Foundation" title="Donald J. Trump Foundation">Foundation</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_and_American_football" title="Donald Trump and American football">American football</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_and_golf" title="Donald Trump and golf">Golf</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_awards_and_honors_received_by_Donald_Trump" title="List of awards and honors received by Donald Trump">Honors</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Public_image_of_Donald_Trump" title="Public image of Donald Trump">Public image</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_in_popular_culture" title="Donald Trump in popular culture">in popular culture</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Saturday_Night_Live_parodies_of_Donald_Trump" title="Saturday Night Live parodies of Donald Trump"><i>SNL</i> parodies</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_and_handshakes" title="Donald Trump and handshakes">handshakes</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Personal_and_business_legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump" title="Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump">Legal affairs</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations" title="Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations">Sexual misconduct allegations</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_nicknames_used_by_Donald_Trump" title="List of nicknames used by Donald Trump">Nicknames</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Pseudonyms_of_Donald_Trump" title="Pseudonyms of Donald Trump">pseudonyms</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump" title="Racial views of Donald Trump">Racial views</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump%27s_comments_on_John_McCain" title="Donald Trump's comments on John McCain">Comments on John McCain</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_conspiracy_theories_promoted_by_Donald_Trump" title="List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump">Conspiracy theories</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Residences_of_Donald_Trump" title="Residences of Donald Trump">Residences</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Rhetoric_of_Donald_Trump" title="Rhetoric of Donald Trump">Rhetoric</a></li></ul>
</div></div>
<hr />
<div class="hidden-begin mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style=""><div class="hidden-title skin-nightmode-reset-color" style="text-align:center;">45th President of the United States</div><div class="hidden-content mw-collapsible-content" style="text-align:center;">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Presidency_of_Donald_Trump" title="Presidency of Donald Trump">Presidency</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Timeline_of_the_Donald_Trump_presidency" title="Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency">timeline</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Presidential_transition_of_Donald_Trump" title="Presidential transition of Donald Trump">Transition</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Inauguration_of_Donald_Trump" title="Inauguration of Donald Trump">Inauguration</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_J._Trump_Presidential_Library" title="Donald J. Trump Presidential Library">Presidential library</a></li></ul>
</div></div>
<hr />
<div class="hidden-begin mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style=""><div class="hidden-title skin-nightmode-reset-color" style="text-align:center;">Tenure</div><div class="hidden-content mw-collapsible-content" style="text-align:center;">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_executive_actions_by_Donald_Trump" title="List of executive actions by Donald Trump">Executive actions</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_proclamations_by_Donald_Trump" title="List of proclamations by Donald Trump">proclamations</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_people_granted_executive_clemency_by_Donald_Trump" title="List of people granted executive clemency by Donald Trump">pardons</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_presidential_trips_made_by_Donald_Trump" title="List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump">Trips</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_international_presidential_trips_made_by_Donald_Trump" title="List of international presidential trips made by Donald Trump">foreign</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_presidential_trips_made_by_Donald_Trump_(2017)" title="List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2017)">'17</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_presidential_trips_made_by_Donald_Trump_(2018)" title="List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2018)">'18</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_presidential_trips_made_by_Donald_Trump_(2019)" title="List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2019)">'19</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_presidential_trips_made_by_Donald_Trump_(2020%E2%80%932021)" title="List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2020–2021)">'20–'21</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Namaste_Trump" title="Namaste Trump">Namaste Trump</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2018%E2%80%9319_Korean_peace_process" title="2018–19 Korean peace process">North Korea summits</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=2018_North_Korea%E2%80%93United_States_Singapore_Summit" title="2018 North Korea–United States Singapore Summit">Singapore</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2019_North_Korea%E2%80%93United_States_Hanoi_Summit" title="2019 North Korea–United States Hanoi Summit">Hanoi</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2019_Koreas%E2%80%93United_States_DMZ_Summit" title="2019 Koreas–United States DMZ Summit">DMZ</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2017_Riyadh_summit" title="2017 Riyadh summit">Riyadh summit</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2018_Russia%E2%80%93United_States_summit" title="2018 Russia–United States summit">Helsinki summit</a></li>
<li>Shutdowns
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=January_2018_United_States_federal_government_shutdown" title="January 2018 United States federal government shutdown">January 2018</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2018%E2%80%932019_United_States_federal_government_shutdown" title="2018–2019 United States federal government shutdown">2018–2019</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Opinion_polling_on_the_Donald_Trump_administration" title="Opinion polling on the Donald Trump administration">Polls</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_lawsuits_involving_Donald_Trump" class="mw-redirect" title="List of lawsuits involving Donald Trump">Lawsuits</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Protests_against_Donald_Trump" title="Protests against Donald Trump">Protests</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=2020_deployment_of_federal_forces_in_the_United_States" title="2020 deployment of federal forces in the United States">federal law enforcement deployment</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_photo_op_at_St._John%27s_Church" title="Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church">St. John's Church photo op</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Social_media_use_by_Donald_Trump" title="Social media use by Donald Trump">Social media</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=False_or_misleading_statements_by_Donald_Trump" title="False or misleading statements by Donald Trump">False or misleading statements</a></li>
<li>Killings
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Death_of_Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi" title="Death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi">al-Baghdadi</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Assassination_of_Qasem_Soleimani" title="Assassination of Qasem Soleimani">Soleimani</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trumpism" title="Trumpism">Trumpism</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump%E2%80%93TikTok_controversy" title="Donald Trump–TikTok controversy">TikTok controversy</a></li></ul>
</div></div>
<hr />
<div class="hidden-begin mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style=""><div class="hidden-title skin-nightmode-reset-color" style="text-align:center;"><a href="/info/en/?search=Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump" title="Political positions of Donald Trump">Policies</a></div><div class="hidden-content mw-collapsible-content" style="text-align:center;">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Economic_policy_of_the_Donald_Trump_administration" title="Economic policy of the Donald Trump administration">Economy</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act_of_2017" class="mw-redirect" title="Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017">tax cuts</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_tariffs" title="Trump tariffs">tariffs</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=China%E2%80%93United_States_trade_war" title="China–United States trade war">China trade war</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_administration_farmer_bailouts" title="Trump administration farmer bailouts">farmer bailouts</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Environmental_policy_of_the_Donald_Trump_administration" title="Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration">Environment</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Paris_Agreement" title="United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement">Paris withdrawal</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Foreign_policy_of_the_Donald_Trump_administration" title="Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration">Foreign policy</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=America_First_(policy)" title="America First (policy)">America First</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2017_United_States%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_arms_deal" title="2017 United States–Saudi Arabia arms deal">Saudi Arabia arms deal</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action" title="United States withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action">Iran nuclear deal withdrawal</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_recognition_of_Jerusalem_as_capital_of_Israel" title="United States recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel">Jerusalem</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_recognition_of_the_Golan_Heights_as_part_of_Israel" title="United States recognition of the Golan Heights as part of Israel">Golan Heights</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_peace_plan" title="Trump peace plan">Palestine peace plan</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Abraham_Accords" title="Abraham Accords">Abraham Accords</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States%E2%80%93Mexico%E2%80%93Canada_Agreement" title="United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement">USMCA</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Doha_Agreement_(2020)" class="mw-redirect" title="Doha Agreement (2020)">Doha Agreement</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Immigration_policy_of_Donald_Trump" title="Immigration policy of Donald Trump">Immigration</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_travel_ban" title="Trump travel ban">travel ban</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_wall" title="Trump wall">wall</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_administration_family_separation_policy" title="Trump administration family separation policy">family separation</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_administration_migrant_detentions" title="Trump administration migrant detentions">migrant detentions</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Operation_Faithful_Patriot" title="Operation Faithful Patriot">troop deployments</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=National_Emergency_Concerning_the_Southern_Border_of_the_United_States" title="National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States">national emergency</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Infrastructure_policy_of_Donald_Trump" title="Infrastructure policy of Donald Trump">Infrastructure</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Social_policy_of_Donald_Trump" title="Social policy of Donald Trump">Social issues</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=First_Step_Act" title="First Step Act">First Step Act</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Cannabis_policy_of_the_Donald_Trump_administration" title="Cannabis policy of the Donald Trump administration">cannabis</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Space_policy_of_the_Donald_Trump_administration" title="Space policy of the Donald Trump administration">Space</a></li></ul>
</div></div>
<hr />
<div class="hidden-begin mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style=""><div class="hidden-title skin-nightmode-reset-color" style="text-align:center;"><a href="/info/en/?search=Political_appointments_by_Donald_Trump" title="Political appointments by Donald Trump">Appointments</a></div><div class="hidden-content mw-collapsible-content" style="text-align:center;">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Cabinet_of_Donald_Trump" title="Cabinet of Donald Trump">Cabinet</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Ambassadors_appointed_by_Donald_Trump" class="mw-redirect" title="United States Ambassadors appointed by Donald Trump">Ambassadors</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump" title="List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump">Federal judges</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Neil_Gorsuch_Supreme_Court_nomination" title="Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination">Gorsuch</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Brett_Kavanaugh_Supreme_Court_nomination" title="Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination">Kavanaugh</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Amy_Coney_Barrett_Supreme_Court_nomination" title="Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination">Barrett</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_Supreme_Court_candidates" title="Donald Trump Supreme Court candidates">Supreme Court candidates</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Executive_appointments_by_Donald_Trump" class="mw-redirect" title="Executive appointments by Donald Trump">Executives</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Attorneys_appointed_by_Donald_Trump" class="mw-redirect" title="United States Attorneys appointed by Donald Trump">U.S. Attorneys</a></li></ul>
</div></div>
<hr />
<div class="hidden-begin mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style=""><div class="hidden-title skin-nightmode-reset-color" style="text-align:center;"><a href="/info/en/?search=Electoral_history_of_Donald_Trump" class="mw-redirect" title="Electoral history of Donald Trump">Presidential campaigns</a></div><div class="hidden-content mw-collapsible-content" style="text-align:center;">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_2000_presidential_campaign" title="Donald Trump 2000 presidential campaign">2000</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=2000_Reform_Party_presidential_primaries" title="2000 Reform Party presidential primaries">primaries</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign" title="Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign">2016</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=2016_United_States_presidential_election" title="2016 United States presidential election">election</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2016_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries" title="2016 Republican Party presidential primaries">primaries</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign_endorsements" title="List of Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign endorsements">endorsements</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_rallies_for_the_2016_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign" title="List of rallies for the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign">rallies</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2016_Republican_National_Convention" title="2016 Republican National Convention">convention</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2016_United_States_presidential_debates" title="2016 United States presidential debates">debates</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Never_Trump_movement" title="Never Trump movement">Never Trump movement</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign" title="List of Republicans who opposed the Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign">people</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_Access_Hollywood_tape" title="Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape"><i>Access Hollywood</i> tape</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_Tower_wiretapping_allegations" title="Trump Tower wiretapping allegations">wiretapping allegations</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Spygate_(conspiracy_theory)" title="Spygate (conspiracy theory)">Spygate</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_2020_presidential_campaign" title="Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign">2020</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=2020_United_States_presidential_election" title="2020 United States presidential election">election</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2020_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries" title="2020 Republican Party presidential primaries">primaries</a></li>
<li>endorsements
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_Donald_Trump_2020_presidential_campaign_political_endorsements" title="List of Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign political endorsements">political</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_Donald_Trump_2020_presidential_campaign_non-political_endorsements" title="List of Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign non-political endorsements">non-political</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_Donald_Trump_2020_presidential_campaign" title="List of Republicans who opposed the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign">opposition</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_post%E2%80%932016_election_Donald_Trump_rallies" title="List of post–2016 election Donald Trump rallies">rallies</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2020_Republican_National_Convention" title="2020 Republican National Convention">convention</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2020_United_States_presidential_debates" title="2020 United States presidential debates">debates</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Republican_reactions_to_Donald_Trump%27s_claims_of_2020_election_fraud" title="Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud">GOP reactions to election fraud claims</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump%E2%80%93Raffensperger_phone_call" title="Trump–Raffensperger phone call">Trump–Raffensperger phone call</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign" title="Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign">2024</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=2024_United_States_presidential_election" title="2024 United States presidential election">election</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries" title="2024 Republican Party presidential primaries">primaries</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign_primary_endorsements" title="List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign primary endorsements">endorsements</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_Republicans_who_oppose_the_Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign" title="List of Republicans who oppose the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign">opposition</a></li>
<li><a class="mw-selflink selflink">eligibility</a></li></ul></li></ul>
</div></div>
<hr />
<div class="hidden-begin mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style=""><div class="hidden-title skin-nightmode-reset-color" style="text-align:center;">Impeachments</div><div class="hidden-content mw-collapsible-content" style="text-align:center;">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump" title="Efforts to impeach Donald Trump">Efforts</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_impeachment_resolutions_introduced_against_Donald_Trump" title="List of impeachment resolutions introduced against Donald Trump">resolutions</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=First_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump" title="First impeachment of Donald Trump">First impeachment</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_scandal" title="Trump–Ukraine scandal">Trump–Ukraine scandal</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Impeachment_inquiry_into_Donald_Trump" title="Impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump">House inquiry</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=First_impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump" title="First impeachment trial of Donald Trump">Senate trial</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Second_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump" title="Second impeachment of Donald Trump">Second impeachment</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack" title="January 6 United States Capitol attack">Capitol attack</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Second_impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump" title="Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump">Senate trial</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Proposed_expungements_of_the_impeachments_of_Donald_Trump" title="Proposed expungements of the impeachments of Donald Trump">Proposed expungements</a></li></ul>
</div></div>
<hr />
<div class="hidden-begin mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style=""><div class="hidden-title skin-nightmode-reset-color" style="text-align:center;">Prosecutions</div><div class="hidden-content mw-collapsible-content" style="text-align:center;">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_(election_obstruction_case)" title="Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)">2020 election federal indictment</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_(classified_documents_case)" title="Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (classified documents case)">Classified documents federal indictment</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Smith_special_counsel_investigation" title="Smith special counsel investigation">special counsel investigation</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=FBI_investigation_into_Donald_Trump%27s_handling_of_government_documents" title="FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents">FBI investigation</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=FBI_search_of_Mar-a-Lago" title="FBI search of Mar-a-Lago">FBI search of Mar-a-Lago</a></li>
<li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_v._United_States_(2022)" title="Trump v. United States (2022)">Trump v. United States</a></i></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York" title="Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York">New York indictment</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Stormy_Daniels%E2%80%93Donald_Trump_scandal" title="Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal">Stormy Daniels scandal</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Karen_McDougal#Affair_with_Donald_Trump" title="Karen McDougal">Karen McDougal affair</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=New_York_criminal_investigation_of_The_Trump_Organization" title="New York criminal investigation of The Trump Organization">financial fraud</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Georgia_election_racketeering_prosecution" title="Georgia election racketeering prosecution">Georgia election indictment</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=2020_Georgia_election_investigation" title="2020 Georgia election investigation">Georgia election investigation</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Mug_shot_of_Donald_Trump" title="Mug shot of Donald Trump">mug shot</a></li></ul></li></ul>
</div></div>
<hr />
<div class="hidden-begin mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style=""><div class="hidden-title skin-nightmode-reset-color" style="text-align:center;">Interactions involving Russia</div><div class="hidden-content mw-collapsible-content" style="text-align:center;">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Business_projects_of_Donald_Trump_in_Russia" title="Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia">Business projects in Russia</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections" title="Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections">Election interference</a>
<ul><li>timeline
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Timeline_of_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections" title="Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections">before July 2016</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Timeline_of_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections_(July_2016_%E2%80%93_election_day)" title="Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016 – election day)">July 2016 – election day</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Topical_timeline_of_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections" title="Topical timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections">topics</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials_and_spies" class="mw-redirect" title="Links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies">Associates' links with Russian officials and spies</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Steele_dossier" title="Steele dossier">Steele dossier</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_Tower_meeting" title="Trump Tower meeting">Trump Tower meeting</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_Tower_Moscow" title="Trump Tower Moscow">Trump Tower Moscow</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump%27s_disclosures_of_classified_information" title="Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information">Classified information disclosures</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2017%E2%80%932018_Department_of_Justice_metadata_seizures" title="2017–2018 Department of Justice metadata seizures">Metadata seizures</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Mueller_special_counsel_investigation" title="Mueller special counsel investigation">Mueller special counsel investigation</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Crossfire_Hurricane_(FBI_investigation)" title="Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation)">Crossfire Hurricane</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Criminal_charges_brought_in_the_Mueller_special_counsel_investigation" title="Criminal charges brought in the Mueller special counsel investigation">charges</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Durham_special_counsel_investigation" title="Durham special counsel investigation">Durham special counsel investigation</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Legal_teams_involved_in_the_Mueller_special_counsel_investigation" title="Legal teams involved in the Mueller special counsel investigation">legal teams</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Mueller_report" title="Mueller report">Mueller report</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Barr_letter" title="Barr letter">Barr letter</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election" title="Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election">Senate report</a></li></ul></li></ul>
</div></div>
<hr />
<div class="hidden-begin mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style=""><div class="hidden-title skin-nightmode-reset-color" style="text-align:center;"><a href="/info/en/?search=COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States" title="COVID-19 pandemic in the United States">COVID-19 pandemic</a></div><div class="hidden-content mw-collapsible-content" style="text-align:center;">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=White_House_Coronavirus_Task_Force" title="White House Coronavirus Task Force">Taskforce</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_administration_communication_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic" class="mw-redirect" title="Trump administration communication during the COVID-19 pandemic">Communication</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=U.S._federal_government_response_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic" title="U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic">Government response</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Stimulus_bill" class="mw-redirect" title="Stimulus bill">stimulus bills</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=CARES_Act" title="CARES Act">CARES Act</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Consolidated_Appropriations_Act,_2021" title="Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021">Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Operation_Warp_Speed" title="Operation Warp Speed">Operation Warp Speed</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=White_House_COVID-19_outbreak" title="White House COVID-19 outbreak">White House outbreak</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_administration_political_interference_with_science_agencies" title="Trump administration political interference with science agencies">Interference with science agencies</a></li></ul>
</div></div>
<hr />
<p><span typeof="mw:File"><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump" title="Donald Trump's signature"><img alt="Donald Trump's signature" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6f/Donald_Trump_%28Presidential_signature%29.svg/150px-Donald_Trump_%28Presidential_signature%29.svg.png" decoding="async" width="150" height="126" class="mw-file-element" srcset="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6f/Donald_Trump_%28Presidential_signature%29.svg/225px-Donald_Trump_%28Presidential_signature%29.svg.png 1.5x, //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6f/Donald_Trump_%28Presidential_signature%29.svg/300px-Donald_Trump_%28Presidential_signature%29.svg.png 2x" data-file-width="512" data-file-height="429" /></a></span><br />
</p>
<span typeof="mw:File"><span><img alt="Seal of the President of the United States" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Seal_of_the_President_of_the_United_States.svg/70px-Seal_of_the_President_of_the_United_States.svg.png" decoding="async" width="70" height="70" class="mw-file-element" srcset="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Seal_of_the_President_of_the_United_States.svg/105px-Seal_of_the_President_of_the_United_States.svg.png 1.5x, //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Seal_of_the_President_of_the_United_States.svg/140px-Seal_of_the_President_of_the_United_States.svg.png 2x" data-file-width="2424" data-file-height="2425" /></span></span></td>
</tr><tr><td class="sidebar-navbar"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1129693374"><style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r1063604349">.mw-parser-output .navbar{display:inline;font-size:88%;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .navbar-collapse{float:left;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .navbar-boxtext{word-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .navbar ul{display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;line-height:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::before{margin-right:-0.125em;content:"[ "}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::after{margin-left:-0.125em;content:" ]"}.mw-parser-output .navbar li{word-spacing:-0.125em}.mw-parser-output .navbar a>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em}</style><div class="navbar plainlinks hlist navbar-mini"><ul><li class="nv-view"><a href="/info/en/?search=Template:Donald_Trump_series" title="Template:Donald Trump series"><abbr title="View this template">v</abbr></a></li><li class="nv-talk"><a href="/info/en/?search=Template_talk:Donald_Trump_series" title="Template talk:Donald Trump series"><abbr title="Discuss this template">t</abbr></a></li><li class="nv-edit"><a href="/info/en/?search=Special:EditPage/Template:Donald_Trump_series" title="Special:EditPage/Template:Donald Trump series"><abbr title="Edit this template">e</abbr></a></li></ul></div></td></tr></tbody></table>
<p><br />
</p>
<link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1129693374"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1045330069"><style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r1104486561">.mw-parser-output ._2021-storming-of-the-United-States-Capitol .sidebar-title,.mw-parser-output ._2021-storming-of-the-United-States-Capitol .sidebar-heading{background-color:#002244}.mw-parser-output ._2021-storming-of-the-United-States-Capitol .sidebar-title a,.mw-parser-output ._2021-storming-of-the-United-States-Capitol .sidebar-heading,.mw-parser-output ._2021-storming-of-the-United-States-Capitol .sidebar-heading a{color:white}</style><table class="sidebar sidebar-collapse nomobile nowraplinks _2021-storming-of-the-United-States-Capitol vcard hlist"><tbody><tr><th class="sidebar-title"><a href="/info/en/?search=January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack" title="January 6 United States Capitol attack">January 6 United<br /> States Capitol attack</a></th></tr><tr><td class="sidebar-image"><span typeof="mw:File"><a href="/info/en/?search=File:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol_DSC09156_(50826223403)_(cropped_to_gallows).jpg" class="mw-file-description"><img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol_DSC09156_%2850826223403%29_%28cropped_to_gallows%29.jpg/250px-2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol_DSC09156_%2850826223403%29_%28cropped_to_gallows%29.jpg" decoding="async" width="250" height="303" class="mw-file-element" srcset="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol_DSC09156_%2850826223403%29_%28cropped_to_gallows%29.jpg/375px-2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol_DSC09156_%2850826223403%29_%28cropped_to_gallows%29.jpg 1.5x, //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol_DSC09156_%2850826223403%29_%28cropped_to_gallows%29.jpg/500px-2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol_DSC09156_%2850826223403%29_%28cropped_to_gallows%29.jpg 2x" data-file-width="1539" data-file-height="1866" /></a></span></td></tr><tr><td class="sidebar-above">
<a href="/info/en/?search=Timeline_of_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack" title="Timeline of the January 6 United States Capitol attack">Timeline</a> • <a href="/info/en/?search=Planning_of_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack" title="Planning of the January 6 United States Capitol attack">Planning</a></td></tr><tr><th class="sidebar-heading">
Background</th></tr><tr><td class="sidebar-content">
<div class="sidebar-list mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"><div class="sidebar-list-title"><a href="/info/en/?search=2020_United_States_presidential_election" title="2020 United States presidential election">2020 presidential election</a> <br /> and other causes</div><div class="sidebar-list-content mw-collapsible-content">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=2020%E2%80%9321_United_States_election_protests" title="2020–21 United States election protests">2020–21 presidential election protests</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2021_United_States_Electoral_College_vote_count" title="2021 United States Electoral College vote count">2021 Electoral College vote count</a> (<a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_alternate_electors_controversy" class="mw-redirect" title="Trump alternate electors controversy">alternate electors</a>)</li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election" title="Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election">Attempts to overturn the election</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Democratic_backsliding_in_the_United_States" title="Democratic backsliding in the United States">Democratic backsliding in the US</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=QAnon" title="QAnon">QAnon</a></li>
<li><span class="wraplinks"><a href="/info/en/?search=Republican_reactions_to_Donald_Trump%27s_claims_of_2020_election_fraud" title="Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud">Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of election fraud</a></span></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Social_media_use_by_Donald_Trump" title="Social media use by Donald Trump">Social media use by Donald Trump</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trumpism" title="Trumpism">Trumpism</a></li></ul></div></div></td>
</tr><tr><td class="sidebar-content">
<div class="sidebar-list mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"><div class="sidebar-list-title">Related groups and persons</div><div class="sidebar-list-content mw-collapsible-content">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Ali_Alexander" title="Ali Alexander">Ali Alexander</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Ray_Epps_(military_veteran)" title="Ray Epps (military veteran)">Ray Epps</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Nick_Fuentes" title="Nick Fuentes">Nick Fuentes</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Rudy_Giuliani" title="Rudy Giuliani">Rudy Giuliani</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Jericho_March" title="Jericho March">Jericho March</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Alex_Jones" title="Alex Jones">Alex Jones</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Sedition_Caucus" title="Sedition Caucus">Sedition Caucus</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump" title="Donald Trump">Donald Trump</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_Jr." title="Donald Trump Jr.">Donald Trump Jr.</a></li></ul></div></div></td>
</tr><tr><th class="sidebar-heading">
Participants</th></tr><tr><td class="sidebar-content">
<div class="sidebar-list mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"><div class="sidebar-list-title">Notable people</div><div class="sidebar-list-content mw-collapsible-content">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Killing_of_Ashli_Babbitt" title="Killing of Ashli Babbitt">Ashli Babbitt</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Joe_Biggs" title="Joe Biggs">Joe Biggs</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Jacob_Chansley" title="Jacob Chansley">Jacob Chansley</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Derrick_Evans_(politician)" title="Derrick Evans (politician)">Derrick Evans</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Baked_Alaska_(livestreamer)" title="Baked Alaska (livestreamer)">Tim "Baked Alaska" Gionet</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Simone_Gold" title="Simone Gold">Simone Gold</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Klete_Keller" title="Klete Keller">Klete Keller</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Ethan_Nordean" title="Ethan Nordean">Ethan Nordean</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Rick_Saccone" title="Rick Saccone">Rick Saccone</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Jon_Schaffer" title="Jon Schaffer">Jon Schaffer</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=John_Earle_Sullivan" title="John Earle Sullivan">John Earle Sullivan</a></li></ul></div></div></td>
</tr><tr><td class="sidebar-content">
<div class="sidebar-list mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"><div class="sidebar-list-title">Organizations</div><div class="sidebar-list-content mw-collapsible-content">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Boogaloo_movement" title="Boogaloo movement">Boogaloo movement</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Groypers" title="Groypers">Groypers</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Oath_Keepers" title="Oath Keepers">Oath Keepers</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Proud_Boys" title="Proud Boys">Proud Boys</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Three_Percenters" title="Three Percenters">Three Percenters</a></li></ul></div></div></td>
</tr><tr><td class="sidebar-content">
<div class="sidebar-list mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"><div class="sidebar-list-title"><a href="/info/en/?search=Law_enforcement_response_to_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack" title="Law enforcement response to the January 6 United States Capitol attack">Law enforcement response</a></div><div class="sidebar-list-content mw-collapsible-content">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Capitol_Police" title="United States Capitol Police">Capitol Police</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Harry_Dunn_(police_officer)" title="Harry Dunn (police officer)">Harry Dunn</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Eugene_Goodman" title="Eugene Goodman">Eugene Goodman</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Death_of_Brian_Sicknick" title="Death of Brian Sicknick">Brian Sicknick</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Death_of_Howard_Liebengood" title="Death of Howard Liebengood">Howard Liebengood</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Steven_Sund" title="Steven Sund">Steven Sund</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Department_of_Defense" title="United States Department of Defense">Department of Defense</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Michael_C._Stenger" title="Michael C. Stenger">Michael C. Stenger</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Paul_D._Irving" title="Paul D. Irving">Paul D. Irving</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Christopher_C._Miller" title="Christopher C. Miller">Christopher C. Miller</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Ryan_D._McCarthy" title="Ryan D. McCarthy">Ryan D. McCarthy</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Walter_E._Piatt" title="Walter E. Piatt">Walter E. Piatt</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Charles_A._Flynn" title="Charles A. Flynn">Charles A. Flynn</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Daniel_Hokanson" class="mw-redirect" title="Daniel Hokanson">Daniel Hokanson</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=William_J._Walker" title="William J. Walker">William J. Walker</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=District_of_Columbia_National_Guard" title="District of Columbia National Guard">DC National Guard</a></li></ul></li>
<li>DC
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Muriel_Bowser" title="Muriel Bowser">Muriel Bowser</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Robert_Contee" title="Robert Contee">Robert Contee</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Michael_Fanone" title="Michael Fanone">Michael Fanone</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Death_of_Jeffrey_L._Smith" title="Death of Jeffrey L. Smith">Jeffrey L. Smith</a></li></ul></li>
<li>Virginia
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Ralph_Northam" title="Ralph Northam">Ralph Northam</a></li></ul></li></ul></div></div></td>
</tr><tr><th class="sidebar-heading">
<a href="/info/en/?search=Aftermath_of_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack" title="Aftermath of the January 6 United States Capitol attack">Aftermath</a></th></tr><tr><td class="sidebar-content">
<div class="sidebar-list mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"><div class="sidebar-list-title"><a href="/info/en/?search=Inauguration_of_Joe_Biden" title="Inauguration of Joe Biden">Biden inauguration</a></div><div class="sidebar-list-content mw-collapsible-content">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=2021_United_States_inauguration_week_protests" title="2021 United States inauguration week protests">2021 inauguration week protests</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Security_preparations_for_the_inauguration_of_Joe_Biden" title="Security preparations for the inauguration of Joe Biden">Security preparations</a></li></ul></div></div></td>
</tr><tr><td class="sidebar-content">
<div class="sidebar-list mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"><div class="sidebar-list-title">Investigations and charges</div><div class="sidebar-list-content mw-collapsible-content">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Justice_Department_investigation_into_attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_presidential_election" title="United States Justice Department investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election">Justice Department investigation</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Criminal_proceedings_in_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack" title="Criminal proceedings in the January 6 United States Capitol attack">Criminal proceedings</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Criminal_proceedings_in_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack#Specific_arrests_and_charges" title="Criminal proceedings in the January 6 United States Capitol attack">list</a></li>
<li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Fischer_v._United_States" title="Fischer v. United States">Fischer v. United States</a></i></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=January_6_commission" title="January 6 commission">January 6 commission</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_the_January_6_Attack" title="United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack">House Select Committee</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Public_hearings_of_the_United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_the_January_6_Attack" title="Public hearings of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack">public hearings</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Smith_special_counsel_investigation" title="Smith special counsel investigation">Smith special counsel investigation</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_(election_obstruction_case)" title="Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)">federal prosecution of Donald Trump</a></li></ul></li></ul></div></div></td>
</tr><tr><td class="sidebar-content">
<div class="sidebar-list mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"><div class="sidebar-list-title">Corporate actions</div><div class="sidebar-list-content mw-collapsible-content">
<ul><li><span class="wraplinks"><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_companies_that_halted_U.S._political_contributions_in_January_2021" title="List of companies that halted U.S. political contributions in January 2021">List of companies that halted political contributions</a></span></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Social_media_use_by_Donald_Trump#2021" title="Social media use by Donald Trump">Social media suspensions of Donald Trump</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Social_media_use_by_Donald_Trump#Permanent_suspension" title="Social media use by Donald Trump">permanent suspension</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Aftermath_of_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack#Corporate_suspensions_of_other_accounts_and_programs" title="Aftermath of the January 6 United States Capitol attack">Suspensions of other social media accounts</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Parler#Shutdown_by_service_providers" title="Parler">shutdown of Parler</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2021_Facebook_leak" title="2021 Facebook leak">Facebook</a></li></ul></div></div></td>
</tr><tr><td class="sidebar-content">
<div class="sidebar-list mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"><div class="sidebar-list-title">Reactions</div><div class="sidebar-list-content mw-collapsible-content">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Domestic_reactions_to_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack" title="Domestic reactions to the January 6 United States Capitol attack">Domestic</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Antifa_(United_States)#Capitol_attack_(2021)" title="Antifa (United States)">Antifa culpability conspiracy theory</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=International_reactions_to_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack" title="International reactions to the January 6 United States Capitol attack">International</a></li></ul></div></div></td>
</tr><tr><td class="sidebar-content">
<div class="sidebar-list mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"><div class="sidebar-list-title">Impeachment and <a href="/info/en/?search=2024_United_States_presidential_election" title="2024 United States presidential election">2024 presidential election</a></div><div class="sidebar-list-content mw-collapsible-content">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Second_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump" title="Second impeachment of Donald Trump">Second impeachment of Donald Trump</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Second_impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump" title="Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump">trial</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a class="mw-selflink selflink">2024 presidential eligibility of Donald Trump</a>
<ul><li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_v._Anderson" title="Trump v. Anderson">Trump v. Anderson</a></i></li></ul></li></ul></div></div></td>
</tr><tr><td class="sidebar-navbar"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1129693374"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1063604349"><div class="navbar plainlinks hlist navbar-mini"><ul><li class="nv-view"><a href="/info/en/?search=Template:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack_sidebar" title="Template:January 6 United States Capitol attack sidebar"><abbr title="View this template">v</abbr></a></li><li class="nv-talk"><a href="/info/en/?search=Template_talk:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack_sidebar" title="Template talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack sidebar"><abbr title="Discuss this template">t</abbr></a></li><li class="nv-edit"><a href="/info/en/?search=Special:EditPage/Template:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack_sidebar" title="Special:EditPage/Template:January 6 United States Capitol attack sidebar"><abbr title="Edit this template">e</abbr></a></li></ul></div></td></tr></tbody></table>
<p><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump" title="Donald Trump">Donald Trump</a>'s eligibility to run in the <a href="/info/en/?search=2024_United_States_presidential_election" title="2024 United States presidential election">2024 U.S. presidential election</a> was the subject of dispute due to his involvement in the <a href="/info/en/?search=January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack" title="January 6 United States Capitol attack">January 6 United States Capitol attack</a>, through the <a href="/info/en/?search=Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution">14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution</a>'s "insurrection clause", which disqualifies <a href="/info/en/?search=Insurrection" class="mw-redirect" title="Insurrection">insurrectionists</a> against the United States from holding office if they have previously taken an oath tdeez nuts the constitution. Courts or officials in three states—<a href="/info/en/?search=Colorado" title="Colorado">Colorado</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=Maine" title="Maine">Maine</a>, and <a href="/info/en/?search=Illinois" title="Illinois">Illinois</a>—ruled that Trump was barred from presidential ballots. However, the Supreme Court in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_v._Anderson" title="Trump v. Anderson">Trump v. Anderson</a></i> (2024) reversed the ruling in Colorado on the basis that states could not enforce the insurrection clause against federal elected officials.<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-1">[1]</a></sup>
</p><p>In December 2023, the <a href="/info/en/?search=Colorado_Supreme_Court" title="Colorado Supreme Court">Colorado Supreme Court</a> in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_v._Anderson" title="Trump v. Anderson">Anderson v. Griswold</a></i> ruled that Trump had engaged in insurrection and was ineligible to hold the office of<a href="/info/en/?search=Shenna_Bellows" title="Shenna Bellows">a Bellows</a> also ruled that Trump engaged in insurrection and was therefore ineligible to be on the <a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Maine_Republican_presidential_primary" title="2024 Maine Republican presidential primary">state's primary election</a> ballot. An Illinois judge ruled Trump was ineligible for ballot access in the state in February 2024.<sup id="cite_ref-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-2">[2]</a></sup> All three states had their decisions unanimously reversed by the United States Supreme Court.<sup id="cite_ref-politicoMarch4_3-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-politicoMarch4-3">[3]</a></sup> Previously, the <a href="/info/en/?search=Minnesota_Supreme_Court" title="Minnesota Supreme Court">Minnesota Supreme Court</a> and the <a href="/info/en/?search=Michigan_Court_of_Appeals" title="Michigan Court of Appeals">Michigan Court of Appeals</a> both ruled that presidential eligibility cannot be applied by their <a href="/info/en/?search=State_court_(United_States)" title="State court (United States)">state courts</a> to <a href="/info/en/?search=Primary_election" title="Primary election">primary elections</a>, but did not rule on the issues for a general election. By January 2024, formal challenges to Trump's eligibility had been filed in at least 34 states.<sup id="cite_ref-4" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-4">[4]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-5">[5]</a></sup>
</p><p>On January 5, 2024, the Supreme Court granted a <a href="/info/en/?search=Writ" title="Writ">writ</a> of <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Certiorari" title="Certiorari">certiorari</a></i> for Trump's appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court ruling in <i>Anderson v. Grisw old</i><sup id="cite_ref-6" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-6">[6]</a></sup> and heard oral arguments on February 8.<sup id="cite_ref-reutersfeb8_7-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-reutersfeb8-7">[7]</a></sup> On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a ruling unanimously reversing the Colorado Supreme Court decision, ruling that states had no authority to remove Trump from their ballots.<sup id="cite_ref-8" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-8">[8]</a></sup>
</p><p>Several commentators have also argued for disqualification because of <a href="/info/en/?search=Democratic_backsliding_in_the_United_States" title="Democratic backsliding in the United States">democratic backsliding</a>, as well as the <a href="/info/en/?search=Paradox_of_tolerance" title="Paradox of tolerance">paradox of tolerance</a>, arguing that voters should not be able to elect Donald Trump, whom they see as a threat to the republic.<sup id="cite_ref-Threat_9-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Threat-9">[9]</a></sup> Other commentators argue that removing Trump from the ballot constitutes democratic backsliding.<sup id="cite_ref-10" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-10">[10]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-11" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-11">[11]</a></sup>
</p><p>There has been widespread <a href="/info/en/?search=Doxing" title="Doxing">doxing</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=Swatting" title="Swatting">swatting</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=Bomb_threat" title="Bomb threat">bomb scares</a>, and other violent threats made against politicians who have attempted to remove Trump from the ballot. On December 29, 2023, Secretary Bellows was swatted.<sup id="cite_ref-:0_12-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-:0-12">[12]</a></sup> The incidents are part of a broader <a href="/info/en/?search=2023_swatting_of_American_politicians" class="mw-redirect" title="2023 swatting of American politicians">spate of swatting attacks</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-13" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-13">[13]</a></sup>
</p>
<div id="toc" class="toc" role="navigation" aria-labelledby="mw-toc-heading"><input type="checkbox" role="button" id="toctogglecheckbox" class="toctogglecheckbox" style="display:none" /><div class="toctitle" lang="en" dir="ltr"><h2 id="mw-toc-heading">Contents</h2><span class="toctogglespan"><label class="toctogglelabel" for="toctogglecheckbox"></label></span></div>
<ul>
<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1"><a href="#Background"><span class="tocnumber">1</span> <span class="toctext">Background</span></a>
<ul>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-2"><a href="#Second_Trump_impeachment"><span class="tocnumber">1.1</span> <span class="toctext">Second Trump impeachment</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-3"><a href="#Subsequent_congressional_action"><span class="tocnumber">1.2</span> <span class="toctext">Subsequent congressional action</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-4"><a href="#Federal_election_obstruction_case_and_lawsuits"><span class="tocnumber">1.3</span> <span class="toctext">Federal election obstruction case and lawsuits</span></a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-5"><a href="#Constitutional_questions"><span class="tocnumber">2</span> <span class="toctext">Constitutional questions</span></a>
<ul>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-6"><a href="#Justiciability_and_laws_of_evidence"><span class="tocnumber">2.1</span> <span class="toctext">Justiciability and laws of evidence</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-7"><a href="#"[O]ffice_under_..._[O]fficer_of_the_United_States""><span class="tocnumber">2.2</span> <span class="toctext">"[O]ffice under ... [O]fficer of the United States"</span></a>
<ul>
<li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-8"><a href="#Appointments_Clause_and_other_clauses"><span class="tocnumber">2.2.1</span> <span class="toctext">Appointments Clause and other clauses</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-9"><a href="#Section_3_drafting_and_ratification_history"><span class="tocnumber">2.2.2</span> <span class="toctext">Section 3 drafting and ratification history</span></a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-10"><a href="#"[I]nsurrection_or_rebellion""><span class="tocnumber">2.3</span> <span class="toctext">"[I]nsurrection or rebellion"</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-11"><a href="#"[G]iven_aid_or_comfort_to_..._enemies""><span class="tocnumber">2.4</span> <span class="toctext">"[G]iven aid or comfort to ... enemies"</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-12"><a href="#Enforcement_of_Section_3"><span class="tocnumber">2.5</span> <span class="toctext">Enforcement of Section 3</span></a>
<ul>
<li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-13"><a href="#Self-executing_or_congressional_enforcement"><span class="tocnumber">2.5.1</span> <span class="toctext">Self-executing or congressional enforcement</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-14"><a href="#Civil_action_or_criminal_conviction"><span class="tocnumber">2.5.2</span> <span class="toctext">Civil action or criminal conviction</span></a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-15"><a href="#Ballot_access_and_Electoral_College_vote_count"><span class="tocnumber">2.6</span> <span class="toctext">Ballot access and Electoral College vote count</span></a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-16"><a href="#Litigation"><span class="tocnumber">3</span> <span class="toctext">Litigation</span></a>
<ul>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-17"><a href="#Supreme_Court"><span class="tocnumber">3.1</span> <span class="toctext">Supreme Court</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-18"><a href="#Lower_federal_courts"><span class="tocnumber">3.2</span> <span class="toctext">Lower federal courts</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-19"><a href="#Colorado"><span class="tocnumber">3.3</span> <span class="toctext">Colorado</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-20"><a href="#Illinois"><span class="tocnumber">3.4</span> <span class="toctext">Illinois</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-21"><a href="#Michigan"><span class="tocnumber">3.5</span> <span class="toctext">Michigan</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-22"><a href="#Minnesota"><span class="tocnumber">3.6</span> <span class="toctext">Minnesota</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-23"><a href="#Oregon"><span class="tocnumber">3.7</span> <span class="toctext">Oregon</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-24"><a href="#Other_states"><span class="tocnumber">3.8</span> <span class="toctext">Other states</span></a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-25"><a href="#State_election_agencies"><span class="tocnumber">4</span> <span class="toctext">State election agencies</span></a>
<ul>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-26"><a href="#Maine"><span class="tocnumber">4.1</span> <span class="toctext">Maine</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-27"><a href="#Massachusetts"><span class="tocnumber">4.2</span> <span class="toctext">Massachusetts</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-28"><a href="#Other_states_2"><span class="tocnumber">4.3</span> <span class="toctext">Other states</span></a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-29"><a href="#Public_opinion"><span class="tocnumber">5</span> <span class="toctext">Public opinion</span></a>
<ul>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-30"><a href="#Party_affiliation"><span class="tocnumber">5.1</span> <span class="toctext">Party affiliation</span></a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-31"><a href="#Reactions_from_other_candidates"><span class="tocnumber">6</span> <span class="toctext">Reactions from other candidates</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-32"><a href="#Violent_incidents"><span class="tocnumber">7</span> <span class="toctext">Violent incidents</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-33"><a href="#Footnotes"><span class="tocnumber">8</span> <span class="toctext">Footnotes</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-34"><a href="#References"><span class="tocnumber">9</span> <span class="toctext">References</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-35"><a href="#Works_cited"><span class="tocnumber">10</span> <span class="toctext">Works cited</span></a>
<ul>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-36"><a href="#Further_reading"><span class="tocnumber">10.1</span> <span class="toctext">Further reading</span></a></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Background">Background</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=1" title="Edit section: Background"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2>
<p>In the aftermath of the <a href="/info/en/?search=American_Civil_War" title="American Civil War">American Civil War</a>, the <a href="/info/en/?search=Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution">14th Amendment</a> was enacted. <a href="/info/en/?search=Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Disqualification_from_office_for_insurrection_or_rebellion" title="Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Section 3</a> of the amendment prohibits anyone from holding public office if they had previously sworn an oath to support the Constitution, but then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." The full text of this section reads:
</p>
<style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r1210818076">.mw-parser-output .quotebox{background-color:#F9F9F9;border:1px solid #aaa;box-sizing:border-box;padding:10px;font-size:88%;max-width:100%}.mw-parser-output .quotebox.floatleft{margin:.5em 1.4em .8em 0}.mw-parser-output .quotebox.floatright{margin:.5em 0 .8em 1.4em}.mw-parser-output .quotebox.centered{overflow:hidden;position:relative;margin:.5em auto .8em auto}.mw-parser-output .quotebox.floatleft span,.mw-parser-output .quotebox.floatright span{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output .quotebox>blockquote{margin:0;padding:0;border-left:0;font-family:inherit;font-size:inherit}.mw-parser-output .quotebox-title{background-color:#F9F9F9;text-align:center;font-size:110%;font-weight:bold}.mw-parser-output .quotebox-quote>:first-child{margin-top:0}.mw-parser-output .quotebox-quote:last-child>:last-child{margin-bottom:0}.mw-parser-output .quotebox-quote.quoted:before{font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-weight:bold;font-size:large;color:gray;content:" “ ";vertical-align:-45%;line-height:0}.mw-parser-output .quotebox-quote.quoted:after{font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-weight:bold;font-size:large;color:gray;content:" ” ";line-height:0}.mw-parser-output .quotebox .left-aligned{text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .quotebox .right-aligned{text-align:right}.mw-parser-output .quotebox .center-aligned{text-align:center}.mw-parser-output .quotebox .quote-title,.mw-parser-output .quotebox .quotebox-quote{display:block}.mw-parser-output .quotebox cite{display:block;font-style:normal}@media screen and (max-width:640px){.mw-parser-output .quotebox{width:100%!important;margin:0 0 .8em!important;float:none!important}}</style><div class="quotebox pullquote centered" style=";">
<blockquote class="quotebox-quote left-aligned" style="">
<p><b>Section 3.</b> 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.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="padding-bottom: 0em;"></p>
</div>
<p>Trump's role in the January 6 United States Capitol attack is cited by opponents as a reason for his disqualification from seeking public office. A state may also make a determination that Trump is disqualified under Section 3 from appearing on that state's ballot.<sup id="cite_ref-3CNN_14-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-3CNN-14">[14]</a></sup> Trump could appeal in court any disqualification by Congress or by a state.<sup id="cite_ref-15" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-15">[15]</a></sup> In addition to state or federal legislative action, a court action could be brought against Trump seeking his disqualification under Section 3.<sup id="cite_ref-16" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-16">[16]</a></sup> The 14th Amendment itself provides a path for Congress to allow such a candidate to run, but this would require a vote of two-thirds of each House to remove such disability.
</p>
<h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Second_Trump_impeachment">Second Trump impeachment</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=2" title="Edit section: Second Trump impeachment"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3>
<p>On January 10, 2021, <a href="/info/en/?search=Nancy_Pelosi" title="Nancy Pelosi">Nancy Pelosi</a>, the <a href="/info/en/?search=Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives" title="Speaker of the United States House of Representatives">Speaker of the House</a>, formally requested Representatives' input as to whether to pursue Section 3 disqualification of outgoing President Donald Trump because of his role in the January 6 Capitol attack.<sup id="cite_ref-3CNN_14-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-3CNN-14">[14]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-17" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-17">[17]</a></sup> On January 13, 2021, a majority of the House of Representatives (232–197) voted to <a href="/info/en/?search=Second_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump" title="Second impeachment of Donald Trump">impeach Trump for "incitement of insurrection"</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-18" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-18">[18]</a></sup> In the <a href="/info/en/?search=Second_impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump" title="Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump">Senate impeachment trial</a>, a majority of the Senate (57–43) voted on February 13, 2021, that he was guilty, but this fell short of the two-thirds <a href="/info/en/?search=Supermajority" title="Supermajority">supermajority</a> required to convict him.<sup id="cite_ref-19" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-19">[19]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Subsequent_congressional_action">Subsequent congressional action</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=3" title="Edit section: Subsequent congressional action"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3>
<style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r1033289096">.mw-parser-output .hatnote{font-style:italic}.mw-parser-output div.hatnote{padding-left:1.6em;margin-bottom:0.5em}.mw-parser-output .hatnote i{font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .hatnote+link+.hatnote{margin-top:-0.5em}</style><div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">See also: <a href="/info/en/?search=Aftermath_of_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack" title="Aftermath of the January 6 United States Capitol attack">Aftermath of the January 6 United States Capitol attack</a></div>
<p>On July 1, 2021, the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_the_January_6_Attack" title="United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack">U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol</a> was formed. Over a year and a half, the committee interviewed more than a thousand people,<sup id="cite_ref-20" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-20">[20]</a></sup> reviewed more than a million documents,<sup id="cite_ref-21" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-21">[21]</a></sup> and held <a href="/info/en/?search=Public_hearings_of_the_United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_the_January_6_Attack" title="Public hearings of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack">public hearings</a>. On August 5, 2021, in a <a href="/info/en/?search=Aftermath_of_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack#Law_enforcement_award_bill" title="Aftermath of the January 6 United States Capitol attack">bill</a> passed by the <a href="/info/en/?search=117th_United_States_Congress" title="117th United States Congress">117th United States Congress</a> and signed into law by President <a href="/info/en/?search=Joe_Biden" title="Joe Biden">Joe Biden</a> that awarded four <a href="/info/en/?search=Congressional_Gold_Medal" title="Congressional Gold Medal">Congressional Gold Medals</a> to the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Capitol_Police" title="United States Capitol Police">United States Capitol Police</a>, the <a href="/info/en/?search=Metropolitan_Police_Department_of_the_District_of_Columbia" title="Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia">Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia</a>, and two U.S. Capitol Police officers who protected the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Capitol" title="United States Capitol">United States Capitol</a> during the January 6 attack, a finding listed in its first section declared that "On January 6, 2021, a mob of insurrectionists forced its way into the U.S. Capitol building and congressional office buildings and engaged in acts of vandalism, looting, and violently attacked Capitol Police officers."<sup id="cite_ref-CNN_8-5-2021_22-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-CNN_8-5-2021-22">[22]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-USPL_117-32_23-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-USPL_117-32-23">[23]</a></sup> The bill passed overwhelmingly, including the support of 188 House Republicans, with only 21 voting against.<sup id="cite_ref-24" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-24">[24]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-25" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-25">[25]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-26" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-26">[26]</a></sup> On December 15, 2022, House Democrats introduced a bill finding that Trump was ineligible to hold the office of the Presidency under Section 3,<sup id="cite_ref-27" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-27">[27]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-28" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-28">[28]</a></sup> but it did not advance.<sup id="cite_ref-29" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-29">[29]</a></sup> On December 22, the House Select January 6 Committee published an 845-page final report.<sup id="cite_ref-30" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-30">[30]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-31" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-31">[31]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-32" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-32">[32]</a></sup> The final report states that the 17 central findings of the Committee were as follows:
</p>
<ol><li>Beginning election night and continuing through January 6 and thereafter, Donald Trump purposely disseminated false allegations of <a href="/info/en/?search=Electoral_fraud" title="Electoral fraud">fraud</a> related to the <a href="/info/en/?search=2020_United_States_presidential_election" title="2020 United States presidential election">2020 Presidential election</a> in order to aid his effort to overturn the election and for purposes of soliciting contributions. These false claims provoked his supporters to violence on January 6.</li>
<li>Knowing that he and his supporters had <a href="/info/en/?search=Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election" title="Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election">lost dozens of election lawsuits</a>, and despite his own senior advisors refuting his election fraud claims and urging him to concede his election loss, Donald Trump refused to accept the lawful result of the 2020 election. Rather than honor his constitutional obligation [under Article II, Section III] to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,"<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552_33-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552-33">[33]</a></sup> President Trump instead plotted to overturn the election outcome.</li>
<li>Despite knowing that such an action would be illegal, and that no State had or would submit an altered electoral slate, Donald Trump corruptly pressured Vice President <a href="/info/en/?search=Mike_Pence" title="Mike Pence">Mike Pence</a> to refuse to count electoral votes during <a href="/info/en/?search=2021_United_States_Electoral_College_vote_count" title="2021 United States Electoral College vote count">Congress's joint session on January 6</a>.</li>
<li>Donald Trump sought to corrupt the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Department_of_Justice" title="United States Department of Justice">U.S. Department of Justice</a> by attempting to enlist Department officials to make purposely false statements and thereby aid his effort to overturn the Presidential election. After that effort failed, Donald Trump offered the position of <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Attorney_General" title="United States Attorney General">Acting Attorney General</a> to <a href="/info/en/?search=Jeffrey_Clark" title="Jeffrey Clark">Jeff Clark</a> knowing that <a href="/info/en/?search=Jeffrey_Clark_letter" title="Jeffrey Clark letter">Clark intended to disseminate false information aimed at overturning the election</a>.</li>
<li>Without any evidentiary basis and contrary to <a href="/info/en/?search=State_law_(United_States)" title="State law (United States)">State</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=Law_of_the_United_States#Federal_law" title="Law of the United States">Federal law</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=Trump%E2%80%93Raffensperger_phone_call" title="Trump–Raffensperger phone call">Donald Trump unlawfully pressured State officials</a> and legislators to change the results of the election in their States.</li>
<li>Donald Trump oversaw an effort to obtain and transmit <a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_fake_electors_plot" title="Trump fake electors plot">false electoral certificates</a> to Congress and the <a href="/info/en/?search=National_Archives_and_Records_Administration" title="National Archives and Records Administration">National Archives</a>.</li>
<li>Donald Trump pressured Members of Congress to object to valid slates of electors from several States.</li>
<li>Donald Trump purposely verified false information filed in <a href="/info/en/?search=Federal_judiciary_of_the_United_States" title="Federal judiciary of the United States">Federal court</a>.</li>
<li>Based on false allegations that the election was stolen, Donald Trump summoned tens of thousands of supporters to <a href="/info/en/?search=Washington,_D.C." title="Washington, D.C.">Washington</a> for January 6. Although these supporters were angry and some were armed, Donald Trump instructed them to march to the Capitol on January 6 to "take back" their country.</li>
<li>Knowing that a violent attack on the Capitol was underway and knowing that his words would incite further violence, <a href="/info/en/?search=Social_media_use_by_Donald_Trump" title="Social media use by Donald Trump">Donald Trump purposely sent a social media message</a> publicly condemning Vice President Pence at 2:24 p.m. on January 6.</li>
<li>Knowing that violence was underway at the Capitol, and despite his duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed, Donald Trump refused repeated requests over a multiple hour period that he instruct his violent supporters to disperse and leave the Capitol, and instead watched the violent attack unfold on television. This failure to act perpetuated the violence at the Capitol and obstructed Congress's proceeding to count electoral votes.</li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election" title="Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election">Each of these actions by Donald Trump was taken in support of a multi-part conspiracy to overturn the lawful results of the 2020 Presidential election</a>.</li>
<li>The intelligence community and law enforcement agencies did successfully detect the <a href="/info/en/?search=Planning_of_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack" title="Planning of the January 6 United States Capitol attack">planning for potential violence on January 6</a>, including planning specifically by the <a href="/info/en/?search=Proud_Boys" title="Proud Boys">Proud Boys</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=Oath_Keepers" title="Oath Keepers">Oath Keeper</a> militia groups who ultimately led the attack on the Capitol. As January 6 approached, the intelligence specifically identified the potential for violence at the U.S. Capitol. This intelligence was shared within the executive branch, including with the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Secret_Service" title="United States Secret Service">Secret Service</a> and the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_National_Security_Council" title="United States National Security Council">President's National Security Council</a>.</li>
<li>Intelligence gathered in advance of January 6 did not support a conclusion that <a href="/info/en/?search=Antifa_(United_States)" title="Antifa (United States)">Antifa</a> or other left-wing groups would likely engage in a violent counter-demonstration, or attack Trump supporters on January 6. Indeed, intelligence from January 5 indicated that some left-wing groups were instructing their members to "stay at home" and not attend on January 6. Ultimately, none of these groups was involved to any material extent with the attack on the Capitol on January 6.</li>
<li>Neither the intelligence community nor law enforcement obtained intelligence in advance of January 6 on the full extent of the <a href="/info/en/?search=Eastman_memos" title="Eastman memos">ongoing planning</a> by President Trump, <a href="/info/en/?search=John_Eastman" title="John Eastman">John Eastman</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=Rudy_Giuliani" title="Rudy Giuliani">Rudolph Giuliani</a> and their associates to overturn the certified election results. Such agencies apparently did not (and potentially could not) anticipate the provocation President Trump would offer the crowd in his <a href="/info/en/?search=The_Ellipse" title="The Ellipse">Ellipse</a> speech, that President Trump would "spontaneously" instruct the crowd to march to the Capitol, that President Trump would exacerbate the violent riot by sending his 2:24 p.m. tweet condemning Vice President Pence, or the full scale of the violence and lawlessness that would ensue. Nor did law enforcement anticipate that President Trump would refuse to direct his supporters to leave the Capitol once violence began. No intelligence community advance analysis predicted exactly how President Trump would behave; no such analysis recognized the full scale and extent of the threat to the Capitol on January 6.</li>
<li>Hundreds of Capitol and DC Metropolitan police officers performed their duties bravely on January 6, and America owes those individuals immense gratitude for their courage in the defense of Congress and our Constitution. Without their bravery, January 6 would have been far worse. Although certain members of the Capitol Police leadership regarded their approach to January 6 as "all hands on deck," the Capitol Police leadership did not have sufficient assets in place to address the violent and lawless crowd. Capitol Police leadership did not anticipate the scale of the violence that would ensue after President Trump instructed tens of thousands of his supporters in the Ellipse crowd to march to the Capitol, and then tweeted at 2:24 p.m. Although Chief <a href="/info/en/?search=Steven_Sund" title="Steven Sund">Steven Sund</a> raised the idea of <a href="/info/en/?search=District_of_Columbia_National_Guard" title="District of Columbia National Guard">National Guard</a> support, the Capitol Police Board did not request Guard assistance prior to January 6. The Metropolitan Police took an even more proactive approach to January 6, and deployed roughly 800 officers, including responding to the emergency calls for help at the Capitol. Rioters still managed to break their line in certain locations, when the crowd surged forward in the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump's 2:24 p.m. tweet. The Department of Justice readied a group of Federal agents at <a href="/info/en/?search=Quantico,_Virginia" title="Quantico, Virginia">Quantico</a> and in the <a href="/info/en/?search=Washington,_D.C." title="Washington, D.C.">District of Columbia</a>, anticipating that January 6 could become violent, and then deployed those agents once it became clear that police at the Capitol were overwhelmed. Agents from the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security" title="United States Department of Homeland Security">Department of Homeland Security</a> were also deployed to assist.</li>
<li>President Trump had authority and responsibility to direct deployment of the National Guard in the District of Columbia, but never gave any order to deploy the National Guard on January 6 or on any other day. Nor did he instruct any Federal law enforcement agency to assist. Because the authority to deploy the National Guard had been delegated to the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Department_of_Defense" title="United States Department of Defense">Department of Defense</a>, the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Secretary_of_Defense" title="United States Secretary of Defense">Secretary of Defense</a> could, and ultimately did deploy the Guard. Although evidence identifies a likely miscommunication between members of the civilian leadership in the Department of Defense impacting the timing of deployment, the Committee has found no evidence that the Department of Defense intentionally delayed deployment of the National Guard. The Select Committee recognizes that some at the Department had genuine concerns, counseling caution, that President Trump might give an illegal order to use the military in support of his efforts to overturn the election.<sup id="cite_ref-House_January_6_Committee_pp._4–7_34-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-House_January_6_Committee_pp._4–7-34">[34]</a></sup></li></ol>
<h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Federal_election_obstruction_case_and_lawsuits">Federal election obstruction case and lawsuits</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=4" title="Edit section: Federal election obstruction case and lawsuits"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3>
<p>In February 2021, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_representatives_from_Mississippi" title="List of United States representatives from Mississippi">Mississippi Representative</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Bennie_Thompson" title="Bennie Thompson">Bennie Thompson</a> filed a <a href="/info/en/?search=Thompson_v._Trump" title="Thompson v. Trump">lawsuit against Trump</a> that alleged that Trump <a href="/info/en/?search=Incitement" title="Incitement">incited</a> the January 6 Capitol attack,<sup id="cite_ref-35" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-35">[35]</a></sup> and <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_representatives_from_California" title="List of United States representatives from California">California Representative</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Eric_Swalwell" title="Eric Swalwell">Eric Swalwell</a> and two U.S. Capitol Police officers filed lawsuits against Trump the next month, likewise alleging incitement of the attack.<sup id="cite_ref-36" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-36">[36]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-37" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-37">[37]</a></sup> On December 19, 2022, the House Select January 6 Committee voted unanimously to <a href="/info/en/?search=Smith_special_counsel_investigation" title="Smith special counsel investigation">refer Trump to the U.S. Department of Justice for prosecution</a>, along with John Eastman.<sup id="cite_ref-38" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-38">[38]</a></sup> The committee recommended four charges against Trump: obstruction of an official proceeding; conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to make a false statement; and attempts to "incite", "assist" or "aid or comfort" an insurrection.<sup id="cite_ref-39" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-39">[39]</a></sup> On August 1, 2023, a <a href="/info/en/?search=Grand_juries_in_the_United_States" title="Grand juries in the United States">grand jury</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Indicted" class="mw-redirect" title="Indicted">indicted</a> Trump in the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_Columbia" title="United States District Court for the District of Columbia">District of Columbia U.S. District Court</a> on <a href="/info/en/?search=Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_(election_obstruction_case)" title="Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)">four charges</a> for his conduct following the 2020 presidential election through the January 6 Capitol attack: <a href="/info/en/?search=Conspiracy_against_the_United_States" title="Conspiracy against the United States">conspiracy to defraud the United States</a> under <a href="/info/en/?search=Title_18_of_the_United_States_Code" title="Title 18 of the United States Code">Title 18 of the United States Code</a>; <a href="/info/en/?search=Obstructing_an_official_proceeding" title="Obstructing an official proceeding">obstructing an official proceeding</a> and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding under the <a href="/info/en/?search=Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act" title="Sarbanes–Oxley Act">Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002</a>; and <a href="/info/en/?search=Conspiracy_against_rights" title="Conspiracy against rights">conspiracy against rights</a> under the <a href="/info/en/?search=Enforcement_Act_of_1870" title="Enforcement Act of 1870">Enforcement Act of 1870</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-40" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-40">[40]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-41" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-41">[41]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBerris2023_42-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBerris2023-42">[42]</a></sup>
</p>
<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Constitutional_questions">Constitutional questions</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=5" title="Edit section: Constitutional questions"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2>
<p>In August 2023, two prominent conservative legal scholars, <a href="/info/en/?search=William_Baude" title="William Baude">William Baude</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=Michael_Stokes_Paulsen" title="Michael Stokes Paulsen">Michael Stokes Paulsen</a>, wrote in a research paper that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump from being president as a consequence of his actions involving attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen2023_43-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen2023-43">[43]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-44" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-44">[44]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-45" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-45">[45]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-46" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-46">[46]</a></sup> Conservative legal scholar <a href="/info/en/?search=J._Michael_Luttig" title="J. Michael Luttig">J. Michael Luttig</a> and liberal legal scholar <a href="/info/en/?search=Laurence_Tribe" title="Laurence Tribe">Laurence Tribe</a> soon concurred in an article they co-wrote, arguing Section 3 protections are automatic and "self-executing", independent of congressional action.<sup id="cite_ref-47" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-47">[47]</a></sup> On January 5, 2024, the US Supreme Court agreed to decide on the case.<sup id="cite_ref-48" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-48">[48]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Justiciability_and_laws_of_evidence">Justiciability and laws of evidence</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=6" title="Edit section: Justiciability and laws of evidence"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3>
<p>The <a href="/info/en/?search=Case_or_Controversy_Clause" title="Case or Controversy Clause">Case or Controversy Clause</a> of <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_2:_Judicial_power,_jurisdiction,_and_trial_by_jury" title="Article Three of the United States Constitution">Article III, Section II</a> states that "The judicial Power [of the Supreme Court and such inferior courts the Congress ordains and establishes] shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution... [and] the Laws of the United States".<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552–553_49-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552–553-49">[49]</a></sup> The <a href="/info/en/?search=Congressional_Research_Service" title="Congressional Research Service">Congressional Research Service</a> (CRS) has noted that the Supreme Court required that <a href="/info/en/?search=Subject-matter_jurisdiction" title="Subject-matter jurisdiction">subject-matter jurisdiction</a> must be established as a "threshold matter" for <a href="/info/en/?search=Justiciability" title="Justiciability">justiciability</a> in <i>Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment</i> (1998),<sup id="cite_ref-50" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-50">[50]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024b2_51-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024b2-51">[51]</a></sup> and established the following three-part test in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Lujan_v._Defenders_of_Wildlife" title="Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife">Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife</a></i> (1992) for establishing <a href="/info/en/?search=Standing_(law)" title="Standing (law)">standing</a>:
</p>
<ol><li>The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact"—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is: (a) concrete and particularized (i.e. that the injury must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way); and (b) "actual or imminent, not 'conjectural' or 'hypothetical,<span style="padding-right:.15em;">'</span>";</li>
<li>There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be "fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not ... th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court."</li>
<li>It must be "likely," as opposed to merely "speculative," that the injury will be "redressed by a favorable decision."<sup id="cite_ref-52" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-52">[52]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024b2_51-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024b2-51">[51]</a></sup></li></ol>
<p>The CRS also notes that the Supreme Court required in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Warth_v._Seldin" title="Warth v. Seldin">Warth v. Seldin</a></i> (1975) that a plaintiff must "ha[ve] 'alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy' as to warrant his invocation of federal court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court's remedial powers on his behalf."<sup id="cite_ref-53" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-53">[53]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024b2_51-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024b2-51">[51]</a></sup> However, the Supreme Court noted in <i>ASARCO v. Kadish</i> (1989) that it has "recognized often that the constraints of Article III do not apply to state courts, and accordingly the state courts are not bound by the limitations of a case or controversy or other federal rules of justiciability, even when they address issues of federal law, as when they are called upon to interpret the Constitution".<sup id="cite_ref-54" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-54">[54]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024b2_51-3" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024b2-51">[51]</a></sup> While the <a href="/info/en/?search=Political_question" title="Political question">political question</a> doctrine of the Supreme Court for non-justiciability was established in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Marbury_v._Madison" title="Marbury v. Madison">Marbury v. Madison</a></i> (1803),<sup id="cite_ref-55" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-55">[55]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-56" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-56">[56]</a></sup> the modern test for whether a controversy constitutes a political question was established in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Baker_v._Carr" title="Baker v. Carr">Baker v. Carr</a></i> (1962) with six criteria:
</p>
<ol><li>a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department;</li>
<li>a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it;</li>
<li>the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion;</li>
<li>the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government;</li>
<li>an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made;</li>
<li>the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.<sup id="cite_ref-57" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-57">[57]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-58" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-58">[58]</a></sup></li></ol>
<p>In establishing the <a href="/info/en/?search=Constitutional_avoidance" title="Constitutional avoidance">constitutional avoidance</a> doctrine of <a href="/info/en/?search=Judicial_review_in_the_United_States" title="Judicial review in the United States">judicial review</a>, the Supreme Court formulated a seven-rule test in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Ashwander_v._Tennessee_Valley_Authority" title="Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority">Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority</a></i> (1936) for the justiciability of controversies presenting constitutional questions:
</p>
<ol><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Collusive_lawsuit" title="Collusive lawsuit">Collusive lawsuit</a> rule: The Court will not [rule] upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, nonadversary, proceeding, declining because to decide such questions "is legitimate only in the last resort, and as a necessity in the determination of real, earnest and vital controversy between individuals. It never was the thought that, by means of a friendly suit, a party beaten in the legislature could transfer to the courts an inquiry as to the constitutionality of the legislative act."</li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Ripeness" title="Ripeness">Ripeness</a>: The Court will not "anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it."</li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Judicial_minimalism" title="Judicial minimalism">Minimalism</a>: The Court will not "formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied."</li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Last_resort_rule" title="Last resort rule">Last resort rule</a>: The Court will not [rule] upon a constitutional question, although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of. ... [I]f a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction or general law, the Court will decide only the latter.</li>
<li>Standing; <a href="/info/en/?search=Mootness" title="Mootness">Mootness</a>: The Court will not [rule] upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation.</li>
<li>Constitutional <a href="/info/en/?search=Estoppel" title="Estoppel">estoppel</a>: The Court will not [rule] upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.</li>
<li>Constitutional avoidance canon: "When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided."<sup id="cite_ref-59" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-59">[59]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-60" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-60">[60]</a></sup></li></ol>
<p>Excluding cases covered by the preceding <a href="/info/en/?search=Original_jurisdiction_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" title="Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States">Original Jurisdiction Clause</a>, the <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_2:_Judicial_power,_jurisdiction,_and_trial_by_jury" title="Article Three of the United States Constitution">Appellate Jurisdiction Clause of Article III, Section II</a> states that "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003553_61-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003553-61">[61]</a></sup> In <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Beech_Aircraft_Corp._v._Rainey" title="Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey">Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey</a></i> (1988), the Supreme Court held that public or agency reports that "[set] forth... factual findings" have "assume[d] admissibility in the first instance" as <a href="/info/en/?search=Evidence_(law)" title="Evidence (law)">evidence</a> in courts under Rule 803 of the <a href="/info/en/?search=Federal_Rules_of_Evidence" title="Federal Rules of Evidence">Federal Rules of Evidence</a> (which were enacted by Congress in 1975),<sup id="cite_ref-CRS_5-22-2020_62-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-CRS_5-22-2020-62">[62]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-63" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-63">[63]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-64" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-64">[64]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-65" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-65">[65]</a></sup> and established a four-part non-exclusive test to determine the trustworthiness of such reports as <a href="/info/en/?search=Admissible_evidence" title="Admissible evidence">admissible evidence</a> if questioned:
</p>
<ol><li>the timeliness of the investigation;</li>
<li>the investigator's skill or experience;</li>
<li>whether a hearing was held;</li>
<li>possible bias when reports are prepared with a view to possible litigation.<sup id="cite_ref-66" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-66">[66]</a></sup></li></ol>
<h3><span id=".22.5BO.5Dffice_under_..._.5BO.5Dfficer_of_the_United_States.22"></span><span class="mw-headline" id=""[O]ffice_under_..._[O]fficer_of_the_United_States"">"[O]ffice under ... [O]fficer of the United States"</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=7" title="Edit section: "[O]ffice under ... [O]fficer of the United States""><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3>
<link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1033289096"><div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">Main article: <a href="/info/en/?search=Officer_of_the_United_States" title="Officer of the United States">Officer of the United States</a></div>
<p>In September 2022, the CRS issued a report on Section 3 that cites an opinion article co-authored by <a href="/info/en/?search=South_Texas_College_of_Law_Houston" title="South Texas College of Law Houston">South Texas College of Law Houston</a> professor <a href="/info/en/?search=Josh_Blackman" title="Josh Blackman">Josh Blackman</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=Maynooth_University" title="Maynooth University">Maynooth University</a> law professor Seth Barrett Tillman (which in turn summarized a law review article Blackman and Tillman co-authored) in noting that the Presidency is not explicitly included in the text of Section 3, and as such, could possibly be exempt from the section's terms.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20222_67-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElsea20222-67">[67]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-68" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-68">[68]</a></sup> Blackman and Tillman note that since Trump never took an <a href="/info/en/?search=Oath_of_office" title="Oath of office">oath of office</a> as a <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Congress" title="United States Congress">member of Congress</a>, nor as a <a href="/info/en/?search=State_legislature_(United_States)" title="State legislature (United States)">state legislator</a>, nor as a <a href="/info/en/?search=State_governments_of_the_United_States" title="State governments of the United States">state executive</a> or judicial officer, and has only taken the <a href="/info/en/?search=Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States" class="mw-redirect" title="Oath of office of the President of the United States">presidential oath of office</a>, that Trump can only be disqualified under Section 3 if the President is an "officer of the United States".<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a3_69-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a3-69">[69]</a></sup>
</p>
<h4><span class="mw-headline" id="Appointments_Clause_and_other_clauses">Appointments Clause and other clauses</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=8" title="Edit section: Appointments Clause and other clauses"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h4>
<p>Citing the <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Commentaries_on_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States" title="Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States">Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States</a></i> written by <a href="/info/en/?search=Associate_Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" title="Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States">Supreme Court Associate Justice</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Joseph_Story" title="Joseph Story">Joseph Story</a>,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a10_70-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a10-70">[70]</a></sup> Blackman and Tillman argue that the President is not an officer of the United States when considering usage in <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Article One of the United States Constitution">Article I</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Article Two of the United States Constitution">Article II</a>, and <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Article Six of the United States Constitution">Article VI</a> of the phrases "officer of the United States" and "office under the United States" which they contend are <a href="/info/en/?search=Jargon#Legal_jargon" title="Jargon">legal terms of art</a> that refer to distinct classes of positions within the federal government.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a5–21_71-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a5–21-71">[71]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-76" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-76">[a]</a></sup> Blackman and Tillman further argue that the former phrase excludes all legislative branch officers of the federal government, that the elected officials of the federal government are not included among the "officers of the United States" under <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Mississippi_v._Johnson" title="Mississippi v. Johnson">Mississippi v. Johnson</a></i> (1867),<sup id="cite_ref-77" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-77">[76]</a></sup> <i><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_v._Hartwell" title="United States v. Hartwell">United States v. Hartwell</a></i> (1867),<sup id="cite_ref-78" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-78">[77]</a></sup> <i><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_v._Mouat" title="United States v. Mouat">United States v. Mouat</a></i> (1888),<sup id="cite_ref-79" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-79">[78]</a></sup> and <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Free_Enterprise_Fund_v._Public_Company_Accounting_Oversight_Board" title="Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board">Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board</a></i> (2010),<sup id="cite_ref-80" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-80">[79]</a></sup> and that there was no drift in the meaning of "officer of the United States" between the ratification of the federal constitution in 1788 and the <i>Mouat</i> decision twenty years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a21–31_81-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a21–31-81">[80]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a5_82-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a5-82">[81]</a></sup> Based upon their law review article, Blackman and Tillman also co-authored a law review article in response to Baude and Paulsen.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2023_83-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2023-83">[82]</a></sup>
</p><p>Blackman and Tillman cite the fact that the Committee of Style at the <a href="/info/en/?search=Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)" title="Constitutional Convention (United States)">1787 Constitutional Convention</a> shortened the use of "Officer of the United States" in the <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_6:_Vacancy_and_disability" title="Article Two of the United States Constitution">Presidential Succession Clause of Article II, Section I</a> to "Officer" and changed "[The President, the Vice President] and <i>other</i> civil Officers of the United States"<sup id="cite_ref-84" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-84">[b]</a></sup> [emphasis added] to "The President, Vice President and <i>all</i> civil Officers of the United States" [emphasis added] in the <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_4:_Impeachment" title="Article Two of the United States Constitution">Impeachment Clause of Article II, Section IV</a> as evidence that the phrases "officer of the United States" and "office under the United States" were not used indiscriminately by the Framers.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a9–10_85-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a9–10-85">[83]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003551–552_86-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003551–552-86">[84]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-87" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-87">[85]</a></sup> Despite the fact that the <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_2:_Method_of_choosing_electors" title="Article Two of the United States Constitution">Presidential Electors Clause of Article II, Section I</a> requires that "no ... Person holding an Office ... under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector",<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003549–550_88-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003549–550-88">[86]</a></sup> that the <a href="/info/en/?search=No_Religious_Test_Clause" title="No Religious Test Clause">No Religious Test Clause</a> of Article VI requires that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office ... under the United States",<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a5_82-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a5-82">[81]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003556_89-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003556-89">[87]</a></sup> and that the <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_7:_Judgment_in_cases_of_impeachment;_Punishment_on_conviction" title="Article One of the United States Constitution">Impeachment Disqualification Clause of Article I, Section III</a> states that conviction in a <a href="/info/en/?search=Federal_impeachment_trial_in_the_United_States" title="Federal impeachment trial in the United States">federal impeachment trial</a> extends to "disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office ... under the United States",<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544_72-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544-72">[72]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Somin_Volokh_Conspiracy_9-16-2023_90-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Somin_Volokh_Conspiracy_9-16-2023-90">[88]</a></sup> Blackman and Tillman argue that elected officials do not hold "offices under the United States" under the <a href="/info/en/?search=Constitution_of_the_United_States#Articles" title="Constitution of the United States">Constitution's first seven articles</a> and take no position on whether the Presidency and Vice Presidency are "office[s] under the United States" in Section 3.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a17,_25_91-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a17,_25-91">[89]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-92" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-92">[90]</a></sup>
</p><p>Blackman and Tillman also claim that the <a href="/info/en/?search=Clerk_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives" title="Clerk of the United States House of Representatives">Clerk of the House of Representatives</a> and the <a href="/info/en/?search=Secretary_of_the_United_States_Senate" title="Secretary of the United States Senate">Secretary of the Senate</a> do not take an oath of office pursuant to the <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Oaths" title="Article Six of the United States Constitution">Oath or Affirmation Clause of Article VI</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a15_93-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a15-93">[91]</a></sup> Conversely, after examining appointment practices during the <a href="/info/en/?search=1st_United_States_Congress" title="1st United States Congress">1st United States Congress</a>, and using a <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Corpus_linguistics" title="Corpus linguistics">corpus linguistics</a></i> analysis of the <i><a href="/info/en/?search=The_Federalist_Papers" title="The Federalist Papers">The Federalist Papers</a></i>, the <a href="/info/en/?search=Anti-Federalist_Papers" title="Anti-Federalist Papers">Anti-Federalist Papers</a>, <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Jonathan_Elliot_(historian)" class="mw-redirect" title="Jonathan Elliot (historian)">Elliot's Debates</a></i>, <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Max_Farrand" title="Max Farrand">Farrand's Records</a></i>, <i><a href="/info/en/?search=An_Universal_Etymological_English_Dictionary" title="An Universal Etymological English Dictionary">An Universal Etymological English Dictionary</a></i> compiled by lexicographer <a href="/info/en/?search=Nathan_Bailey" title="Nathan Bailey">Nathan Bailey</a>, and other contemporaneous dictionaries, <a href="/info/en/?search=Antonin_Scalia_Law_School" title="Antonin Scalia Law School">Antonin Scalia Law School</a> professor Jennifer L. Mascott has argued that the <a href="/info/en/?search=Originalism" title="Originalism">original public meaning</a> of "officer" as used in the <a href="/info/en/?search=Appointments_Clause" title="Appointments Clause">Appointments Clause</a> of Article II, Section II encompassed any government official with responsibility for an ongoing governmental duty and likely extended to officials not currently appointed as Article II officers.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMascott2018_94-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMascott2018-94">[92]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552_33-4" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552-33">[33]</a></sup> Citing Mascott,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMascott2018459–460_95-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMascott2018459–460-95">[93]</a></sup> Myles S. Lynch notes in a law review article published by the <i>William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal</i> in 2021 that the current controlling case for whether a position is an officer of the United States or a federal government employee is <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Buckley_v._Valeo" title="Buckley v. Valeo">Buckley v. Valeo</a></i> (1976),<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021158–160_96-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021158–160-96">[94]</a></sup> where the Supreme Court established that "any appointee exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States is an 'Officer of the United States.<span style="padding-right:.15em;">'</span>"<sup id="cite_ref-97" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-97">[95]</a></sup>
</p><p>In an opinion issued in 2007 reviewing the <i>Buckley v. Valeo</i> decision under the terms of the Appointments Clause, the <a href="/info/en/?search=Office_of_Legal_Counsel" title="Office of Legal Counsel">Office of Legal Counsel</a> (OLC) concluded that "A position to which is delegated by legal authority a portion of the sovereign powers of the federal government and that is 'continuing' is a federal office... [and a] person who would hold such a position must be ... an 'Officer of the United States<span style="padding-right:.15em;">'</span>".<sup id="cite_ref-98" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-98">[96]</a></sup> Mascott notes that the OLC and the Supreme Court in cases subsequent to <i>Buckley v. Valeo</i> have expanded the original public meaning of "officer" to include positions that the 1st United States Congress would not have considered "officers", but also restricted the original public meaning to include only positions with a "significant" delegation of sovereign power.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMascott2018462–470_99-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMascott2018462–470-99">[97]</a></sup> Lynch argues that Mascott's conclusion about the original public meaning of "officer" is consistent with <a href="/info/en/?search=Judicial_interpretation#Basis_for_judicial_interpretation" title="Judicial interpretation">functionalist</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=Legal_formalism" title="Legal formalism">formalist</a> tests established in the Supreme Court's rulings in <i>United States v. Hartwell</i> and <i><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_v._Germaine" title="United States v. Germaine">United States v. Germaine</a></i> (1878) for what positions qualify as "officers".<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021161_100-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021161-100">[98]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-101" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-101">[99]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-102" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-102">[100]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMurrill201818–22_103-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMurrill201818–22-103">[101]</a></sup> Following the Court's opinions in <i>United States v. Hartwell</i>, <i>United States v. Germaine</i>, and <i>Buckley v. Valeo</i>, the 2007 OLC opinion, and Mascott's research, Lynch argues that the Presidency and Vice Presidency are "offices under the United States" and the President and Vice President are "officers of the United States", because the Presidency is clearly delegated part of the sovereign powers of the United States for a period of continuous exercise and both positions are held by persons who obtain the positions by constitutionally mandated procedures.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021161–162_104-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021161–162-104">[102]</a></sup>
</p><p>In delegating to Congress the power to pass legislation providing for the case of a dual vacancy in the Presidency and Vice Presidency, the Presidential Succession Clause states that Congress shall "declar[e] what Officer shall ... act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly".<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003551_105-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003551-105">[103]</a></sup> Pursuant to the Presidential Succession Clause, the <a href="/info/en/?search=2nd_United_States_Congress" title="2nd United States Congress">2nd United States Congress</a> passed the <a href="/info/en/?search=Presidential_Succession_Act#Presidential_Succession_Act_of_1792" title="Presidential Succession Act">Presidential Succession Act of 1792</a> that included the <a href="/info/en/?search=Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives" title="Speaker of the United States House of Representatives">Speaker of the House of Representatives</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=President_pro_tempore_of_the_United_States_Senate" title="President pro tempore of the United States Senate">President pro tempore of the Senate</a> in the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_presidential_line_of_succession" title="United States presidential line of succession">presidential line of succession</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020a3_106-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020a3-106">[104]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEContinuity_of_Government_Commission200925–29_107-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEContinuity_of_Government_Commission200925–29-107">[105]</a></sup> The CRS and the <a href="/info/en/?search=Continuity_of_Government_Commission" title="Continuity of Government Commission">Continuity of Government Commission</a> have noted that the use of "Officer" in the clause caused debate in Congress at the time over whether including legislative branch officers in the presidential line of succession was constitutional, with opponents of the bill (who included <a href="/info/en/?search=James_Madison" title="James Madison">James Madison</a>) arguing that the use of "Officer" in the clause referred to "Officer of the United States" and that officers of the United States were limited to executive branch officers.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020a3_106-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020a3-106">[104]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEContinuity_of_Government_Commission200925–29_107-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEContinuity_of_Government_Commission200925–29-107">[105]</a></sup> After the <a href="/info/en/?search=49th_United_States_Congress" title="49th United States Congress">49th United States Congress</a> removed the Speaker and the President pro tem from the presidential line of succession when passing the <a href="/info/en/?search=Presidential_Succession_Act#Presidential_Succession_Act_of_1886" title="Presidential Succession Act">Presidential Succession Act of 1886</a>,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEContinuity_of_Government_Commission200929–30_108-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEContinuity_of_Government_Commission200929–30-108">[106]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020a4_109-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020a4-109">[107]</a></sup> the <a href="/info/en/?search=80th_United_States_Congress" title="80th United States Congress">80th United States Congress</a> restored the positions to the presidential line of succession under the <a href="/info/en/?search=Presidential_Succession_Act#Presidential_Succession_Act_of_1947" title="Presidential Succession Act">Presidential Succession Act of 1947</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEContinuity_of_Government_Commission200932–33_110-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEContinuity_of_Government_Commission200932–33-110">[108]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020a4–6_111-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020a4–6-111">[109]</a></sup>
</p><p>While congressional debate on both bills revisited whether including legislative branch officers in the presidential line of succession was constitutional, the 80th United States Congress restored their inclusion when considering that the Presidential Succession Act of 1792 was in effect for 94 years before being repealed, and was the contemporaneous effectuation of the Presidential Succession Clause, and that some of the members of the 2nd United States Congress who supported the bill were also Constitutional Convention delegates.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020a7–8_112-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020a7–8-112">[110]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEContinuity_of_Government_Commission200929–30_108-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEContinuity_of_Government_Commission200929–30-108">[106]</a></sup> Additionally, the 80th United States Congress also took into consideration the Supreme Court's ruling in <i>Lamar v. United States</i> (1916) that members of the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_House_of_Representatives" title="United States House of Representatives">House of Representatives</a> are officers of the United States in upholding a conviction under a federal penal statute that criminalized <a href="/info/en/?search=Impersonating_a_public_servant" title="Impersonating a public servant">impersonating</a> an officer of the United States for the purpose of committing <a href="/info/en/?search=Fraud" title="Fraud">fraud</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020a8_113-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020a8-113">[111]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-114" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-114">[112]</a></sup> Until the ratification of the <a href="/info/en/?search=Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution">17th Amendment</a>,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003563_115-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003563-115">[113]</a></sup> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Senate" title="United States Senate">Senators</a> were chosen in <a href="/info/en/?search=Indirect_election" title="Indirect election">indirect elections</a> by state legislatures under <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_1:_Composition_and_election_of_senators" title="Article One of the United States Constitution">Article I, Section III</a> and James Madison refers to the indirect elections in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Federalist_No._62" title="Federalist No. 62">Federalist No. 62</a></i> as an "appointment" four times.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003374–376,_543_116-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003374–376,_543-116">[114]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-117" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-117">[115]</a></sup> However, <a href="/info/en/?search=University_of_Richmond_School_of_Law" title="University of Richmond School of Law">University of Richmond School of Law</a> professor Kurt T. Lash and the CRS note that before the Senate dismissed the <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_of_impeachment" title="Article of impeachment">impeachment article</a> brought by the House against <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_senators_from_Tennessee" title="List of United States senators from Tennessee">Tennessee Senator</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=William_Blount" title="William Blount">William Blount</a> in 1797 due to lack of jurisdiction (partly because the <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_senators_expelled_or_censured" title="List of United States senators expelled or censured">Senate had already expelled</a> Blount), the Senate rejected a resolution that Senators were "civil officers of the United States" subject to impeachment.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202311–14_118-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202311–14-118">[116]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEColeGarvey202316–17_119-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEColeGarvey202316–17-119">[117]</a></sup>
</p><p>In <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Minor_v._Happersett" title="Minor v. Happersett">Minor v. Happersett</a></i> (1875), the Supreme Court refers to the President in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Obiter_dictum" title="Obiter dictum">obiter dicta</a></i> as being among the "elective officers of the United States" along with the Vice President and members of Congress.<sup id="cite_ref-120" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-120">[118]</a></sup> In <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Burr_conspiracy" title="Burr conspiracy">United States v. Burr</a></i> (1807), <a href="/info/en/?search=Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States" title="Chief Justice of the United States">Chief Justice</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=John_Marshall" title="John Marshall">John Marshall</a>, presiding as the Circuit Justice for Virginia,<sup id="cite_ref-121" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-121">[119]</a></sup> noted that "By the Constitution of the United States, the President, as well as any other officer of the government, may be impeached...".<sup id="cite_ref-122" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-122">[120]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-123" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-123">[121]</a></sup> <a href="/info/en/?search=George_Mason_University" title="George Mason University">George Mason University</a> law professor <a href="/info/en/?search=Ilya_Somin" title="Ilya Somin">Ilya Somin</a> has argued that the exclusion of the President from the "civil officers of the United States" in the Impeachment Clause of Article II, Section IV is due to the President being the <a href="/info/en/?search=Powers_of_the_president_of_the_United_States#Commander-in-chief" title="Powers of the president of the United States">Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces</a> under <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_1:_Command_of_military;_Opinions_of_cabinet_secretaries;_Pardons" title="Article Two of the United States Constitution">Article II, Section II</a>, that use of "appointment" in the Appointments Clause is not mutually exclusive from the use of "election", that the presidential oath of office effectively commissions the President, and that Blackman and Tillman's argument that the Presidency is not an "office under the United States" would lead to the conclusion that impeached and convicted federal government officials could still serve as president but not be appointed to lower federal government positions.<sup id="cite_ref-Somin_Volokh_Conspiracy_9-16-2023_90-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Somin_Volokh_Conspiracy_9-16-2023-90">[88]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552_33-5" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552-33">[33]</a></sup> Also, under the <a href="/info/en/?search=Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution">12th Amendment</a>, "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President", and as a consequence, the Vice Presidency has the same eligibility requirements as the Presidency.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020b3–4_124-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020b3–4-124">[122]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003561_125-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003561-125">[123]</a></sup>
</p><p>The Appointments Clause states that "[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors... and all other Officers of the United States... but the Congress may ... vest the Appointment of ... inferior Officers... in the President alone",<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003551_105-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003551-105">[103]</a></sup> while the <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_6:_Officers'_commissions" title="Article Two of the United States Constitution">Commissions Clause of Article II, Section III</a> states that "[The President] ... shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552_33-6" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552-33">[33]</a></sup> The Oath or Affirmation Clause states that "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned... and all executive and judicial Officers... of the United States... shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution".<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003555–556_75-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003555–556-75">[75]</a></sup> While the Oath or Affirmation Clause does not explicitly require an <a href="/info/en/?search=Oath_of_office_of_the_vice_president_of_the_United_States" title="Oath of office of the vice president of the United States">oath of office of the Vice President</a>, the <a href="/info/en/?search=An_act_to_regulate_the_time_and_manner_of_administering_certain_oaths" title="An act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths">Oath Administration Act</a> passed by the 1st United States Congress pursuant to the Oath or Affirmation Clause (and which remains in effect) requires that "...the said oath or affirmation ... [required by Article VI] ... shall be administered to [the President of the Senate]" and the Vice President is the President of the Senate under <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_4:_Vice_president_as_president_of_Senate" title="Article One of the United States Constitution">Article I, Section III</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-126" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-126">[124]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-127" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-127">[125]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544_72-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544-72">[72]</a></sup> In <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Federalist_No._68" title="Federalist No. 68">Federalist No. 68</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=Alexander_Hamilton" title="Alexander Hamilton">Alexander Hamilton</a> described the indirect election of the President and Vice President by the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Electoral_College" title="United States Electoral College">United States Electoral College</a> as an "appointment" four times.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003410–412_128-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003410–412-128">[126]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-129" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-129">[127]</a></sup>
</p><p>Also, in every <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_presidential_election" title="United States presidential election">presidential election</a> from <a href="/info/en/?search=1788%E2%80%931789_United_States_presidential_election" class="mw-redirect" title="1788–1789 United States presidential election">1788</a> through <a href="/info/en/?search=1828_United_States_presidential_election" title="1828 United States presidential election">1828</a>, multiple state legislatures selected their presidential electors by discretionary appointment rather than on the basis of a poll, while the <a href="/info/en/?search=South_Carolina_General_Assembly" title="South Carolina General Assembly">South Carolina General Assembly</a> did so in <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_presidential_elections_in_South_Carolina" title="United States presidential elections in South Carolina">every presidential election</a> through <a href="/info/en/?search=1860_United_States_presidential_election" title="1860 United States presidential election">1860</a>, and the <a href="/info/en/?search=Florida_Legislature" title="Florida Legislature">Florida Legislature</a> and the <a href="/info/en/?search=Colorado_General_Assembly" title="Colorado General Assembly">Colorado General Assembly</a> selected their presidential electors by discretionary appointment in <a href="/info/en/?search=1868_United_States_presidential_election" title="1868 United States presidential election">1868</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=1876_United_States_presidential_election" title="1876 United States presidential election">1876</a> respectively.<sup id="cite_ref-Williams_2012_p._1567_130-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Williams_2012_p._1567-130">[128]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-131" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-131">[129]</a></sup> In practice, the Presidential Electors Clause bars all federal government employees from serving as presidential electors in addition to explicitly barring members of Congress.<sup id="cite_ref-132" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-132">[130]</a></sup> The <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_7:_Salary" title="Article Two of the United States Constitution">Domestic Emoluments Clause of Article II, Section I</a> requires that "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation... during the Period for which he shall have been elected",<sup id="cite_ref-CRS_1-27-2021_133-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-CRS_1-27-2021-133">[131]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003551_105-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003551-105">[103]</a></sup> and the current salary of the President and Vice President are $400,000 per year and $235,100 per year respectively.<sup id="cite_ref-134" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-134">[132]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-135" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-135">[133]</a></sup> While the text of the <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Speaker_and_other_officers;_Impeachment" title="Article One of the United States Constitution">House Officers Clause of Article I, Section II</a> does not explicitly require the Speaker of the House to be a House member,<sup id="cite_ref-Heitshusen_CRS_5-16-2017_136-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Heitshusen_CRS_5-16-2017-136">[134]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003543_137-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003543-137">[135]</a></sup> all Speakers have been House members and the text of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 assumes that the Speaker is a House member in requiring the Speaker's resignation upon succession to the Presidency due to the <a href="/info/en/?search=Ineligibility_Clause" title="Ineligibility Clause">Ineligibility Clause</a> of Article I, Section VI.<sup id="cite_ref-138" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-138">[136]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020a5_139-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020a5-139">[137]</a></sup>
</p><p>The Ineligibility Clause states that "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under ... the United States ... and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003545_73-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003545-73">[73]</a></sup> Even though the Clerk of the House of Representatives is not a House member and no Secretary of the Senate has been an incumbent Senator,<sup id="cite_ref-Heitshusen_CRS_5-16-2017_136-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Heitshusen_CRS_5-16-2017-136">[134]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-140" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-140">[138]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-141" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-141">[139]</a></sup> the Oath Administration Act provides that "...the oath or affirmation [required by Article VI]... shall be administered ... to the Speaker... and to the [C]lerk" and that "the [S]ecretary of the Senate... shall... [take] the oath or affirmation [required by Article VI]".<sup id="cite_ref-142" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-142">[140]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-143" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-143">[141]</a></sup> In holding in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=NLRB_v._Noel_Canning" title="NLRB v. Noel Canning">National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning</a></i> (2014) that the <a href="/info/en/?search=Recess_appointment" title="Recess appointment">Recess Appointments Clause of Article II, Section II</a> does not authorize the President to make appointments while the Senate is in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Pro_forma" title="Pro forma">pro forma</a></i> sessions,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552_33-7" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552-33">[33]</a></sup> the Supreme Court cited <i>Marbury v. Madison</i> and <i><a href="/info/en/?search=McCulloch_v._Maryland" title="McCulloch v. Maryland">McCulloch v. Maryland</a></i> (1819) in concluding that "The longstanding 'practice of the government' ... can inform [the] determination of 'what the law is<span style="padding-right:.15em;">'</span>".<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMurrill201822–23_144-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMurrill201822–23-144">[142]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-145" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-145">[143]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-146" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-146">[144]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-147" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-147">[145]</a></sup>
</p><p>In upholding the <a href="/info/en/?search=Congressional_charter" title="Congressional charter">authority of Congress to issue</a> the <a href="/info/en/?search=Articles_of_association" title="Articles of association">corporate charter</a> for the <a href="/info/en/?search=Second_Bank_of_the_United_States" title="Second Bank of the United States">Second Bank of the United States</a> in 1816 under the <a href="/info/en/?search=Necessary_and_Proper_Clause" title="Necessary and Proper Clause">Necessary and Proper Clause</a> of Article I, Section VIII, the Supreme Court noted in <i>McCulloch v. Maryland</i> that the 1st United States Congress actively debated whether issuing the corporate charter for the <a href="/info/en/?search=First_Bank_of_the_United_States" title="First Bank of the United States">First Bank of the United States</a> was constitutional, but "After being resisted first in the fair and open field of debate, and afterwards in the executive cabinet... [the bill] became a law" in 1791, and as the law was "[a]n exposition of the Constitution, deliberately established by legislative acts... [and] not to be lightly disregarded", the Court concluded that whether Congress had the authority to incorporate a bank by the time of the <i>McCulloch</i> decision could "scarcely be considered as an open question."<sup id="cite_ref-148" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-148">[146]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-149" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-149">[147]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-150" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-150">[148]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMurrill201818–22_103-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMurrill201818–22-103">[101]</a></sup> Along with Blackman and Tillman,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a_151-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a-151">[149]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2023185–229_152-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2023185–229-152">[150]</a></sup> Lash argues that the exclusion of the Presidency in Section 3 and from the "civil officers of the United States" in the Impeachment Clause of Article II, Section IV leads to the conclusion that the President is not an officer of the United States following <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Statutory_interpretation#Textual_canons" title="Statutory interpretation">expressio unius</a></i>.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash20235_153-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELash20235-153">[151]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBrannon202351_154-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBrannon202351-154">[152]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a2_155-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a2-155">[153]</a></sup>
</p><p>Blackman and Tillman also argue that because the President does not take an oath of office pursuant to the Oath or Affirmation Clause and that the text of the presidential oath of office provided in <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_8:_Oath_or_affirmation" title="Article Two of the United States Constitution">Article II, Section I</a> does not include the word "support",<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003551_105-3" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003551-105">[103]</a></sup> that the President is exempted from the terms of Section 3.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a24_156-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a24-156">[154]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2023186_157-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2023186-157">[155]</a></sup> Conversely, the CRS suggests that the fact that the text of the presidential oath of office is specifically provided in Article II, Section I does not mean that it is not also an oath of office within the terms of the Oath or Affirmation Clause or Section 3, and also suggests that it would be anomalous that the presidential oath of office would exempt the Presidency from both Section 3 and the <a href="/info/en/?search=Religious_qualifications_for_public_office_in_the_United_States" title="Religious qualifications for public office in the United States">proscription against religious tests as a qualification</a> for "office[s] under the United States" in the No Religious Test Clause, but that the Vice Presidency would remain subject to both Section 3 and the No Religious Test Clause.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a5_82-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a5-82">[81]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003556_89-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003556-89">[87]</a></sup> The <a href="/info/en/?search=Establishment_Clause" title="Establishment Clause">Establishment Clause</a> of the <a href="/info/en/?search=First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="First Amendment to the United States Constitution">1st Amendment</a> also provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an <a href="/info/en/?search=State_religion" title="State religion">establishment of religion</a>".<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003558_158-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003558-158">[156]</a></sup>
</p><p>Noting Blackman and Tillman's arguments about the meaning of "officer of the United States" and "office under the United States" in the first seven articles,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus20236–7_159-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus20236–7-159">[157]</a></sup> John Vlahoplus argues in a law review article accepted by the <i><a href="/info/en/?search=British_Journal_of_American_Legal_Studies" title="British Journal of American Legal Studies">British Journal of American Legal Studies</a></i> in May 2023 that 19th century usage of the phrases included the Presidency citing an 1834 <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_House_Committee_on_Foreign_Affairs" title="United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs">House Foreign Affairs Committee</a> report that concluded that the <a href="/info/en/?search=Foreign_Emoluments_Clause" title="Foreign Emoluments Clause">Foreign Emoluments Clause</a> of <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_9:_Limits_on_Federal_power" title="Article One of the United States Constitution">Article I, Section IX</a> applied to the President.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus20237–10_160-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus20237–10-160">[158]</a></sup> The Foreign Emoluments Clause states that "no Person holding any Office … under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."<sup id="cite_ref-CRS_1-27-2021_133-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-CRS_1-27-2021-133">[131]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003549_161-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003549-161">[159]</a></sup> Also in contrast to Blackman and Tillman, Vlahoplus cites the Supreme Court in <i>United States v. Mouat</i> as holding that "any person holding employment or appointment under the United States" were "persons serving under the Government of the United States."<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus202311_162-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus202311-162">[160]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-163" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-163">[161]</a></sup> The CRS notes that the Constitution refers to the Presidency as an "office" in total 25 times,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a2_155-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a2-155">[153]</a></sup> and as such, Baude and Paulsen,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen2023104–112_164-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen2023104–112-164">[162]</a></sup> Vlahoplus,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus2023_165-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus2023-165">[163]</a></sup> and <a href="/info/en/?search=University_of_Maryland_Francis_King_Carey_School_of_Law" title="University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law">University of Maryland School of Law</a> professor Mark A. Graber all argue that the Presidency must be an "office under the United States" and the President must be an "officer of the United States" following the <a href="/info/en/?search=Plain_meaning_rule" title="Plain meaning rule">plain meaning of the text</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a_166-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a-166">[164]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a5_82-3" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a5-82">[81]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBrannon202321–24_167-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBrannon202321–24-167">[165]</a></sup>
</p>
<h4><span class="mw-headline" id="Section_3_drafting_and_ratification_history">Section 3 drafting and ratification history</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=9" title="Edit section: Section 3 drafting and ratification history"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h4>
<p>Citing a law review article written by <a href="/info/en/?search=Indiana_University_Robert_H._McKinney_School_of_Law" title="Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law">Indiana University School of Law</a> professor <a href="/info/en/?search=Gerard_Magliocca" title="Gerard Magliocca">Gerard Magliocca</a>,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMagliocca2021_168-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMagliocca2021-168">[166]</a></sup> the CRS report notes an exchange in congressional debate between <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_senators_from_Maryland" title="List of United States senators from Maryland">Maryland Senator</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Reverdy_Johnson" title="Reverdy Johnson">Reverdy Johnson</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_senators_from_Maine" title="List of United States senators from Maine">Maine Senator</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Lot_M._Morrill" title="Lot M. Morrill">Lot M. Morrill</a> during the drafting process of Section 3 in concluding that it could be more likely that the President is an officer of the United States subject to disqualification under the section:
</p>
<style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r1211633275">.mw-parser-output .templatequote{overflow:hidden;margin:1em 0;padding:0 32px}.mw-parser-output .templatequote .templatequotecite{line-height:1.5em;text-align:left;padding-left:1.6em;margin-top:0}</style><blockquote class="templatequote"><p>[Mr. JOHNSON.] ... I do not see but that any one of these gentlemen may be elected President or Vice President of the United States, and why did you omit to exclude them? I do not understand them to be excluded from the privilege of holding the two highest offices in the gift of the nation. ...
</p><p>Mr. MORRILL. Let me call the Senator's attention to the words "or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States."
</p><p>Mr. JOHNSON. Perhaps I am wrong as to the exclusion from the Presidency; no doubt I am; but I was misled by noticing the specific exclusion in the case of Senators and Representatives. ...
</p>
<div class="templatequotecite">— <cite><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Congressional_Record" title="Congressional Record">Congressional Globe</a></i> Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866. p. 2899.<sup id="cite_ref-169" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-169">[167]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20222_67-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElsea20222-67">[67]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a4_170-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a4-170">[168]</a></sup></cite></div></blockquote>
<p>Along with Magliocca, Baude and Paulsen cite the exchange between Senators Johnson and Morrill in disputing Blackman and Tillman's argument, and argue further that Blackman and Tillman's argument "implausibly splits linguistic hairs".<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen2023109_171-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen2023109-171">[169]</a></sup> Vlahoplus that argues that in the context of Section 3 the President is an officer of the United States and the Presidency is an office under the United States citing the 1862 statute formulating the <a href="/info/en/?search=Ironclad_Oath" title="Ironclad Oath">Ironclad Oath</a>, which said "every person elected or appointed to any office of honor or profit under the government of the United States, either in the civil, military, or naval departments of the public service, excepting the President of the United States".<sup id="cite_ref-172" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-172">[170]</a></sup> Vlahoplus argues that this acknowledged the Presidency as an "office ... under the government of the United States".<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus202310–11_173-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus202310–11-173">[171]</a></sup> Lynch likewise cites the Ironclad Oath in arguing that the President is an officer of the United States,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021165–167_174-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021165–167-174">[172]</a></sup> and Lynch also cites the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Circuit_Court_of_the_District_of_Columbia" title="United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia">U.S. Circuit Court of the District of Columbia</a> ruling affirmed in the Supreme Court's ruling in <i>Kendall v. United States ex Rel. Stokes</i> (1838) as stating "The president himself . . . is but an officer of the United States".<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021163_175-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021163-175">[173]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-176" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-176">[174]</a></sup>
</p><p>Noting that Story's <i>Commentaries</i> references the Blount impeachment trial in arguing that the President, Vice President, and members of Congress of the federal government were not "civil officers of the United States", Lash argues that the framers of Section 3 accepted Story's analysis of the Blount impeachment as authoritative and was cited extensively in newspaper coverage during the ratification of the 14th Amendment,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202312–13,_48–50_177-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202312–13,_48–50-177">[175]</a></sup> and Lash argues that Reverdy Johnson was following <i>expressio unius</i> in his exchange with Morrill given his familiarity with the Blount impeachment trial.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202312,_33–37_178-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202312,_33–37-178">[176]</a></sup> Conversely, Graber has noted that a congressional report presented to the <a href="/info/en/?search=39th_United_States_Congress" title="39th United States Congress">39th United States Congress</a> concluded that "a little consideration of this matter will show that 'officers of' and 'officers under' the United States are ... 'indiscriminately used in the Constitution.<span style="padding-right:.15em;">'</span>"<sup id="cite_ref-179" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-179">[177]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-180" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-180">[178]</a></sup> Surveying congressional debate in the <i>Congressional Globe</i>, Graber states that no members of Congress during the drafting of the 14th Amendment saw any distinction between the presidential oath of office and the oath of office required by the Oath or Affirmation Clause and most members of Congress involved in the drafting typically referred to the President as an "officer of the United States" and the Presidency as an "office under the United States".<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a17–24_181-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a17–24-181">[179]</a></sup>
</p><p>Likewise, Vlahoplus states that members of Congress saw no distinction between the presidential oath of office and the oath of office required by the Oath or Affirmation Clause.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus202310–11_173-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus202310–11-173">[171]</a></sup> Vlahoplus argues that there is an "essential harmony" between the phrases "officer of the United States" and "office under the United States" in concluding that the President is an "officer of the United States" and the Presidency is an "office under the United States".<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus202321–25_182-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus202321–25-182">[180]</a></sup> While Lash notes that Republican members of Congress ridiculed President <a href="/info/en/?search=Andrew_Johnson" title="Andrew Johnson">Andrew Johnson</a> for referring to the President as the "chief civil executive officer of the United States",<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202313_183-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202313-183">[181]</a></sup> Vlahoplus notes that Presidents, beginning with George Washington and through James A. Garfield, were commonly referred to by the general public and by the 39th United States Congress specifically as the "first executive officer of the United States" and the "chief executive officer of the United States" and in reference to the presidential election process, the constitutional position as head of the executive branch.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus202316–19_184-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus202316–19-184">[182]</a></sup> Also, the Supreme Court stated in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Nixon_v._Fitzgerald" title="Nixon v. Fitzgerald">Nixon v. Fitzgerald</a></i> (1982) that the delegation of executive power under the <a href="/info/en/?search=Vesting_Clauses" title="Vesting Clauses">Vesting Clause of Article II, Section I</a> "establishes the President as the chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch".<sup id="cite_ref-185" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-185">[183]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003549_161-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003549-161">[159]</a></sup>
</p><p>In light of the exchange between Senators Reverdy Johnson and Lot Morrill on Section 3, Magliocca argues that Congress did not intend and the public at the time would not have understood the text of Section 3 to mean that <a href="/info/en/?search=Jefferson_Davis" title="Jefferson Davis">Jefferson Davis</a> could not have served as a representative or senator, but could have served as president of the United States after serving as <a href="/info/en/?search=President_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America" title="President of the Confederate States of America">President of the Confederate States</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202110–11_186-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202110–11-186">[184]</a></sup> Lynch likewise argues that it is unlikely that the framers of Section 3 and the public would have understood the text to mean that an ex-Confederate could be elected President,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021162–165_187-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021162–165-187">[185]</a></sup> while Graber argues that congressional debate on the drafting of the 14th Amendment demonstrates that the clause was explicitly intended to prevent ex-Confederate officials from assuming federal offices.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a4–7_188-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a4–7-188">[186]</a></sup> Vlahoplus also cites the Johnson-Morrill exchange and contemporaneous newspaper coverage of the 14th Amendment's drafting and ratification debates that explicitly refer to Jefferson Davis in the context of Section 3 in arguing that Section 3 applies to the Presidency.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus20237–10_160-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus20237–10-160">[158]</a></sup> Conversely, Lash argues that the congressional and ratification debates on Section 3 focused on preventing Jefferson Davis from returning to Congress and preventing presidential electors from voting for Davis rather than Davis from serving as President or Vice President.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202318–19,_46–48_189-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202318–19,_46–48-189">[187]</a></sup>
</p><p>Citing a proposal for the 14th Amendment drafted by <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_representatives_from_Kentucky" title="List of United States representatives from Kentucky">Kentucky Representative</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Samuel_McKee_(politician,_born_1833)" title="Samuel McKee (politician, born 1833)">Samuel McKee</a> that explicitly included the President and Vice President among the offices from which disqualified persons would be barred,<sup id="cite_ref-190" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-190">[188]</a></sup> Lash argues that the President and Vice President were omitted from the text of Section 3 intentionally.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202314–29_191-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202314–29-191">[189]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a2–3_192-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a2–3-192">[190]</a></sup> However, the CRS notes that the text of McKee's proposal does not appear in the journal of the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Congressional_Joint_Committee_on_Reconstruction" title="United States Congressional Joint Committee on Reconstruction">Joint Committee on Reconstruction</a> that drafted the 14th Amendment and was instead referred to the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_House_Committee_on_the_Judiciary" title="United States House Committee on the Judiciary">House Judiciary Committee</a>, and the CRS also notes that McKee's proposal never received a vote in Congress and there is no clear direct evidence that it was even considered.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a3–5_193-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a3–5-193">[191]</a></sup> The CRS also notes that a bill submitted by <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_representatives_from_Massachusetts" title="List of United States representatives from Massachusetts">Massachusetts Representative</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=George_S._Boutwell" title="George S. Boutwell">George S. Boutwell</a> that required disqualification from "any office under the Government of the United States" also never received a vote in Congress, and that the language that was ultimately included in Section 3 was an edited version of a proposal drafted by <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_senators_from_New_Hampshire" title="List of United States senators from New Hampshire">New Hampshire Senator</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Daniel_Clark_(New_Hampshire_politician)" title="Daniel Clark (New Hampshire politician)">Daniel Clark</a>, which was proposed by <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_senators_from_Michigan" title="List of United States senators from Michigan">Michigan Senator</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Jacob_M._Howard" title="Jacob M. Howard">Jacob M. Howard</a> after Reverdy Johnson successfully moved to strike Section 3 from the proposal for the 14th Amendment as initially reported to the Senate.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a4–5_194-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a4–5-194">[192]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202329–33_195-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202329–33-195">[193]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a14–17_196-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a14–17-196">[194]</a></sup>
</p><p>Vlahoplus also cites a pair of official legal opinions issued by <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Attorney_General" title="United States Attorney General">Attorney General</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Henry_Stanbery" title="Henry Stanbery">Henry Stanbery</a> in 1867 on federal statutes that would enforce Section 3 pending the ratification of the 14th Amendment that concluded that the "state executive and judicial officers" in the clause included state governors following the plain meaning of the text and that the Presidency falls within the definition of "officer of the United States" in Stanbery’s opinions.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus202313–15_197-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus202313–15-197">[195]</a></sup> In remarks made on the final draft of Section 3 at the final House debate, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_representatives_from_Pennsylvania" title="List of United States representatives from Pennsylvania">Pennsylvania Representative</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Thaddeus_Stevens" title="Thaddeus Stevens">Thaddeus Stevens</a> stated that "The third section has been wholly changed by substituting the ineligibility of certain high officers for the disenfranchisement of all rebels until 1870. This I cannot look upon as an improvement. … In my judgment it endangers the government of the country, both State and national; and may give the next Congress and President to the reconstructed rebels."<sup id="cite_ref-Congressional_Globe_6-13-1866_198-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Congressional_Globe_6-13-1866-198">[196]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202338–39_199-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202338–39-199">[197]</a></sup> Citing Stevens, Lash concludes that it is unclear whether Section 3 applies to the presidential oath of office and bars individuals from holding the Presidency but concedes that Section 3 could be read to include the President.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202357–62_200-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202357–62-200">[198]</a></sup> Reiterating the exchange between Senators Johnson and Morrill, the CRS concludes that the drafting history of the 14th Amendment may undercut the inference that the President and Vice President were deliberately omitted from Section 3.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a4–5_194-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a4–5-194">[192]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3><span id=".22.5BI.5Dnsurrection_or_rebellion.22"></span><span class="mw-headline" id=""[I]nsurrection_or_rebellion"">"[I]nsurrection or rebellion"</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=10" title="Edit section: "[I]nsurrection or rebellion""><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3>
<link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1033289096"><div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">See also: <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States" title="List of incidents of civil unrest in the United States">List of incidents of civil unrest in the United States</a></div>
<p>In its September 2022 report on Section 3, the CRS notes that the Constitution does not define what qualifies as an insurrection or a rebellion but that the <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_8:_Powers_of_Congress" title="Article One of the United States Constitution">Militia Clause of Article I, Section VIII</a> authorizes Congress to pass laws to "provide for calling forth the Militia to, execute the Laws of the Union, [and] suppress Insurrections",<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20223_201-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElsea20223-201">[199]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003547_202-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003547-202">[200]</a></sup> while Baude and Paulsen note that <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_9:_Limits_on_Federal_power" title="Article One of the United States Constitution">Article I, Section IX</a> states that "The Privilege of the Writ of <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States" title="Habeas corpus in the United States">Habeas Corpus</a></i> shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202373_203-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202373-203">[201]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003548_204-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003548-204">[202]</a></sup> The CRS, Baude and Paulsen, and Lynch note that Congress passed the <a href="/info/en/?search=Insurrection_Act_of_1807" title="Insurrection Act of 1807">Insurrection Act</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=Militia_Acts_of_1792" title="Militia Acts of 1792">Militia Acts</a> pursuant to the Militia Clause, that the Insurrection Act and Militia Acts authorize the President to use the militia and armed forces to prevent "unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States [that] make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings", and that the 1871 amendment to the Insurrection Act authorizes the use of the armed forces to suppress insurrection attempting to "oppose or obstruct the execution of the laws of the United States or impede the course of justice under those laws."<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20223_201-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElsea20223-201">[199]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202387–88_205-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202387–88-205">[203]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021167–170_206-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021167–170-206">[204]</a></sup> As it is required by the 12th Amendment and effectuated by the <a href="/info/en/?search=Electoral_Count_Act" title="Electoral Count Act">Electoral Count Act</a> and the <a href="/info/en/?search=Electoral_Count_Reform_and_Presidential_Transition_Improvement_Act_of_2022" title="Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022">Electoral Count Reform Act</a> (ECRA),<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERybickiWhitaker20201_207-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERybickiWhitaker20201-207">[205]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-NPR_12-23-2022_208-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-NPR_12-23-2022-208">[206]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003560_209-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003560-209">[207]</a></sup> the CRS and Graber note that the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Electoral_College#Joint_session_of_Congress" title="United States Electoral College">Electoral College vote count</a> arguably qualifies as an execution of the laws of the United States.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20223_201-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElsea20223-201">[199]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a42–43_210-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a42–43-210">[208]</a></sup>
</p><p>In a dispute over whether the state government and <a href="/info/en/?search=Constitution_of_Rhode_Island" title="Constitution of Rhode Island">constitution</a> installed in <a href="/info/en/?search=Rhode_Island" title="Rhode Island">Rhode Island</a> by the <a href="/info/en/?search=Dorr_Rebellion" title="Dorr Rebellion">Dorr Rebellion</a> or the state government operating under the <a href="/info/en/?search=Rhode_Island_Royal_Charter" title="Rhode Island Royal Charter">Rhode Island Royal Charter</a> was the legitimate state government under the <a href="/info/en/?search=Guarantee_Clause" title="Guarantee Clause">Guarantee Clause</a> of the <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_4:_Obligations_of_the_United_States" title="Article Four of the United States Constitution">Article IV, Section IV</a>,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003554_211-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003554-211">[209]</a></sup> the Supreme Court held in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Luther_v._Borden" title="Luther v. Borden">Luther v. Borden</a></i> (1849) that the controversy was a political question that could only be determined by Congress.<sup id="cite_ref-212" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-212">[210]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202391_213-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202391-213">[211]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-214" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-214">[212]</a></sup> The CRS cites the Supreme Court's ruling in <i>Luther v. Borden</i> as establishing that the Insurrection Act generally leaves the decision to determine whether a civil disturbance qualifies as an insurrection at the discretion of the President with invocation sufficing for disqualification under Section 3.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20223_201-3" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElsea20223-201">[199]</a></sup> Baude and Paulsen cite the Supreme Court's ruling in the <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Prize_Cases" title="Prize Cases">Prize Cases</a></i> (1863) as stating that "This greatest of civil wars was not gradually developed by popular commotion, tumultuous assemblies, or local unorganized insurrections... [but] sprung forth suddenly ... in the full panoply of <i>war</i>. The President was bound to meet it in the shape it presented itself, without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name".<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202384–85_215-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202384–85-215">[213]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-216" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-216">[214]</a></sup> Conversely, surveying federal and state case law on insurrection prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Graber argues that federal and state courts have never required that prosecutors provide evidence of a presidential proclamation being issued in cases related to an insurrection.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a40–42_217-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a40–42-217">[215]</a></sup>
</p><p>The CRS also suggests that presidential invocation of the Insurrection Act might be unnecessary to establish an event as an insurrection because the Militia Clause and <a href="/info/en/?search=Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_5:_Power_of_enforcement" title="Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Section 5 of the 14th Amendment</a> probably also provide Congress with the legislative authority to designate an event as an insurrection for determining disqualification under Section 3.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20223_201-4" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElsea20223-201">[199]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003547,_562_218-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003547,_562-218">[216]</a></sup> While the Supreme Court held in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Martin_v._Mott" title="Martin v. Mott">Martin v. Mott</a></i> (1827) that "The authority to decide whether the exigencies contemplated" under the Militia Clause and the Militia Act of 1795 "have arisen, is exclusively vested in the President, and his decision is conclusive upon all other persons",<sup id="cite_ref-219" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-219">[217]</a></sup> Lynch argues that it is unlikely that Congress or courts would allow for public office disqualification pursuant to Section 3 strictly on a President's judgement of whether an insurrection has occurred due to potential <a href="/info/en/?search=Abuse_of_power" title="Abuse of power">abuse of power</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021180–181_220-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021180–181-220">[218]</a></sup> Along with the definitions of "insurrection" and "rebellion" in the 1828 and 1864 editions of the <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Webster%27s_Dictionary" title="Webster's Dictionary">American Dictionary of the English Language</a></i> originally compiled by lexicographer <a href="/info/en/?search=Noah_Webster" title="Noah Webster">Noah Webster</a>, the 1860 abridgement of <i>Webster's Dictionary</i> compiled by lexicographer <a href="/info/en/?search=Joseph_Emerson_Worcester" title="Joseph Emerson Worcester">Joseph Emerson Worcester</a>, and the 12th edition of <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Bouvier%27s_Law_Dictionary" title="Bouvier's Law Dictionary">Bouvier's Law Dictionary</a></i> released in 1868,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202370–72_221-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202370–72-221">[219]</a></sup> Baude and Paulsen cite the <i>Prize Cases</i> as stating that "Insurrection against a government may or may not culminate in an organized rebellion, but a civil war always begins by insurrection against the lawful authority of the Government," in arguing that "insurrection" and "rebellion" are legally distinct.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202364_222-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202364-222">[220]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-223" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-223">[221]</a></sup>
</p><p>Along with <a href="/info/en/?search=Abraham_Lincoln%27s_first_inaugural_address" title="Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address">Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address</a> and Lincoln's July 4, 1861, message to Congress,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202375–76_224-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202375–76-224">[222]</a></sup> Baude and Paulsen argue that the text of the Ironclad Oath and Sections 2 and 3 of the <a href="/info/en/?search=Confiscation_Act_of_1862" title="Confiscation Act of 1862">Second Confiscation Act</a> are instructive for understanding the original meaning of "insurrection" and "rebellion" in Section 3.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202379–84_225-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202379–84-225">[223]</a></sup> Adopted by the <a href="/info/en/?search=37th_United_States_Congress" title="37th United States Congress">37th United States Congress</a> in 1862 for the incoming members of the <a href="/info/en/?search=38th_United_States_Congress" title="38th United States Congress">38th United States Congress</a>, the Ironclad Oath states:
</p>
<link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1211633275"><blockquote class="templatequote"><p>I, A. B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto. And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.<sup id="cite_ref-226" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-226">[224]</a></sup></p></blockquote>
<p>Also passed in 1862 and 6 years prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Sections 2 and 3 of the Second Confiscation Act state:
</p>
<link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1211633275"><blockquote class="templatequote"><p>[Section 2]. ... [I]f any person shall hereafter incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States, or the laws thereof, or shall give aid or comfort thereto, or shall engage in, or give aid and comfort to, any such existing rebellion or insurrection, and be convicted thereof, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and by the liberation of all his slaves, if any he have; or by both of said punishments, at the discretion of the court.<br />[Section 3]. ... [E]very person guilty of ... the offences described in this act shall be forever incapable and disqualified to hold any office under the United States.<sup id="cite_ref-227" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-227">[225]</a></sup></p></blockquote>
<p>Baude and Paulsen cite the invocation of the Insurrection Act by <a href="/info/en/?search=George_Washington" title="George Washington">George Washington</a> during the <a href="/info/en/?search=Whiskey_Rebellion" title="Whiskey Rebellion">Whiskey Rebellion</a>, by <a href="/info/en/?search=John_Adams" title="John Adams">John Adams</a> during the <a href="/info/en/?search=Fries%27s_Rebellion" title="Fries's Rebellion">Fries's Rebellion</a>, by <a href="/info/en/?search=Millard_Fillmore" title="Millard Fillmore">Millard Fillmore</a> during the <a href="/info/en/?search=Christiana_Riot" title="Christiana Riot">Christiana Riot</a>, by <a href="/info/en/?search=Abraham_Lincoln" title="Abraham Lincoln">Abraham Lincoln</a> in the <a href="/info/en/?search=Presidential_proclamation_(United_States)" title="Presidential proclamation (United States)">presidential proclamation</a> calling for <a href="/info/en/?search=President_Lincoln%27s_75,000_volunteers" title="President Lincoln's 75,000 volunteers">75,000 volunteers</a> following the <a href="/info/en/?search=Battle_of_Fort_Sumter" title="Battle of Fort Sumter">Battle of Fort Sumter</a>, and by <a href="/info/en/?search=Ulysses_S._Grant" title="Ulysses S. Grant">Ulysses S. Grant</a> after the <a href="/info/en/?search=Colfax_massacre" title="Colfax massacre">Colfax massacre</a> in 1873 and the <a href="/info/en/?search=Battle_of_Liberty_Place" title="Battle of Liberty Place">Battle of Liberty Place</a> in 1874, during the <a href="/info/en/?search=Brooks%E2%80%93Baxter_War" title="Brooks–Baxter War">Brooks–Baxter War</a> in 1874, during the <a href="/info/en/?search=Vicksburg_massacre" title="Vicksburg massacre">Vicksburg massacre</a> in 1875, twice in <a href="/info/en/?search=South_Carolina" title="South Carolina">South Carolina</a> in 1871, and during the <a href="/info/en/?search=Hamburg_massacre" title="Hamburg massacre">Hamburg massacre</a>, the <a href="/info/en/?search=Ellenton_massacre" title="Ellenton massacre">Ellenton massacre</a>, and the other <a href="/info/en/?search=South_Carolina_civil_disturbances_of_1876" title="South Carolina civil disturbances of 1876">South Carolina civil disturbances of 1876</a> as examples of such presidential designation of civil disturbances as insurrections or rebellions.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202375–76,_87–93_228-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202375–76,_87–93-228">[226]</a></sup> With respect to the Christiana Riot, <a href="/info/en/?search=Nat_Turner%27s_slave_rebellion" class="mw-redirect" title="Nat Turner's slave rebellion">Nat Turner's slave rebellion</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=John_Brown%27s_raid_on_Harpers_Ferry" title="John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry">John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry</a>, and other riots interfering with enforcement of the <a href="/info/en/?search=Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850" title="Fugitive Slave Act of 1850">Fugitive Slave Act of 1850</a> in <a href="/info/en/?search=Boston" title="Boston">Boston</a> in 1850 and 1851 and in <a href="/info/en/?search=Wisconsin" title="Wisconsin">Wisconsin</a> in 1859, Baude and Paulsen state "These rebels and insurrectionists were fighting deeply unjust laws, but there is no question that they committed many acts of insurrection nonetheless. Rebellion for a good cause is still rebellion."<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202390–91_229-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202390–91-229">[227]</a></sup> Graber notes in addendum that "Legal authorities from the framing to Reconstruction insisted that insurrection or treason trials do not turn on the justice of any complaint against the laws. ... That the motive is moral rather than pecuniary is one factor that converts a riot into an insurrection."<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a42–43_210-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a42–43-210">[208]</a></sup>
</p><p>During congressional debate on the 14th Amendment, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_senators_from_West_Virginia" title="List of United States senators from West Virginia">West Virginia Senator</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Peter_G._Van_Winkle" title="Peter G. Van Winkle">Peter G. Van Winkle</a> stated in reference to Section 3, that "This is to go into our Constitution and to stand to govern future insurrection as well as the present; and I should like to have that point definitely understood",<sup id="cite_ref-230" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-230">[228]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-231" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-231">[229]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a50_232-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a50-232">[230]</a></sup> and Lynch, Vlahoplus, and Graber argue that while early drafts of Section 3 limited its application to the Civil War, the final language was broadened to include insurrection and rebellion retrospectively and prospectively due to concerns about ex-Confederates engaging in insurrection or rebellion postbellum.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021168_233-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021168-233">[231]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a13–17_234-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a13–17-234">[232]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus20234–6_235-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus20234–6-235">[233]</a></sup> Conversely, Lash argues that the evidence from the drafting history of Section 3 on whether the clause was intended to apply prospectively or only to the Civil War is mixed, that Daniel Clark's proposal for Section 3 omitted reference to future rebellions, and that the public understanding of Section 3, as expressed in contemporaneous newspaper coverage and public comments made by members of Congress and state governors during the <a href="/info/en/?search=1866_United_States_elections" title="1866 United States elections">1866 midterm elections</a>, was that Section 3 applied only to the Civil War.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202330,_37–46_236-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202330,_37–46-236">[234]</a></sup>
</p><p>As with whether Section 3 applies to the presidential oath of office and the Presidency, Lash concludes that it is unclear whether Section 3 applies prospectively or only to the Civil War while conceding that the clause could be read to imply the former possibility.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202357–62_200-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202357–62-200">[198]</a></sup> While the CRS, Baude and Paulsen, Lynch, and Magliocca note that Congress would subsequently amend the Enforcement Act of 1870 that provided congressional enforcement for Section 3 with the <a href="/info/en/?search=Amnesty_Act" title="Amnesty Act">Amnesty Act</a> in 1872 and a subsequent amnesty law in 1898 in accordance with the two-thirds majority requirement of Section 3,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20225_237-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElsea20225-237">[235]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202311–16_238-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202311–16-238">[236]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021178_239-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021178-239">[237]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202139–64_240-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202139–64-240">[238]</a></sup> the CRS has also noted that the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fourth_Circuit" title="United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit">U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals</a> held in the Section 3 lawsuit brought against <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_representatives_from_North_Carolina" title="List of United States representatives from North Carolina">North Carolina Representative</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Madison_Cawthorn" title="Madison Cawthorn">Madison Cawthorn</a> that the Amnesty Act applies only retrospectively and not prospectively in that only acts prior to its enactment qualify for amnesty from Section 3 disqualification and not acts subsequent to its enactment.<sup id="cite_ref-CRS_6-1-2022_p._3_241-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-CRS_6-1-2022_p._3-241">[239]</a></sup>
</p><p>Based on the concurrent majorities in favor of the sole article in the second Trump impeachment in the House and the impeachment trial in the Senate, and the passage of the Congressional Gold Medals bill in August 2021, Baude and Paulsen argue that Congress has effectively designated the January 6 Capitol attack as an insurrection,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen2023112–116_242-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen2023112–116-242">[240]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-CNN_8-5-2021_22-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-CNN_8-5-2021-22">[22]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-USPL_117-32_23-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-USPL_117-32-23">[23]</a></sup> while Graber argues that the January 6 Capitol attack falls within the meaning of "insurrection" within pre-14th Amendment federal and state case law.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a42–43_210-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a42–43-210">[208]</a></sup> Baude and Paulsen conclude, "If the public record is accurate, the case is not even close. [Donald Trump] is no longer eligible to the office of [the] Presidency, or any other state or federal office covered by the Constitution."<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen2023116–122_243-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen2023116–122-243">[241]</a></sup> Graber argues that if Donald Trump's actions as described in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh central findings of the House Select January 6 Committee final report were done intentionally and knowingly in support of the January 6 Capitol attack, then his actions meet the standard for engaging in an insurrection as established by federal and state case law, and the findings are sufficient to disqualify Trump under Section 3 if those findings are proven in a hearing on the application of Section 3 to his eligibility to serve as President.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a51–53_244-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a51–53-244">[242]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-House_January_6_Committee_pp._4–7_34-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-House_January_6_Committee_pp._4–7-34">[34]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3><span id=".22.5BG.5Diven_aid_or_comfort_to_..._enemies.22"></span><span class="mw-headline" id=""[G]iven_aid_or_comfort_to_..._enemies"">"[G]iven aid or comfort to ... enemies"</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=11" title="Edit section: "[G]iven aid or comfort to ... enemies""><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3>
<link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1033289096"><div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">See also: <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_free_speech_exceptions" title="United States free speech exceptions">United States free speech exceptions</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=Treason_laws_in_the_United_States" title="Treason laws in the United States">Treason laws in the United States</a></div>
<p>Like Baude and Paulsen,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202373_203-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202373-203">[201]</a></sup> the CRS notes that the <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Treason" title="Article Three of the United States Constitution">Treason Clause of Article III, Section III</a> states "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" and mirrors the language of Section 3 to describe the offenses qualifying for disqualification.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20223_201-5" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElsea20223-201">[199]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003553_61-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003553-61">[61]</a></sup> The CRS goes on to cite the Supreme Court's rulings in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Cramer_v._United_States" title="Cramer v. United States">Cramer v. United States</a></i> (1945) and <i>Haupt v. United States</i> (1947) in suggesting that simple association with a person is insufficient to qualify as "giving aid or comfort" but that actions that provide even relatively minor material support does qualify.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20224_245-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElsea20224-245">[243]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-246" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-246">[244]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-247" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-247">[245]</a></sup> Lynch notes that the Court stated in <i>Cramer v. United States</i> that there is "no evidence whatever that… aid and comfort was designed to encompass a narrower field than that indicated by its accepted and settled meaning" as established by the <a href="/info/en/?search=Treason_Act_1351" title="Treason Act 1351">Treason Act 1351</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021170–178_248-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021170–178-248">[246]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-249" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-249">[247]</a></sup> The CRS and Baude and Paulsen cite the <i>Prize Cases</i> as concluding that citizens of the <a href="/info/en/?search=Confederate_States_of_America" title="Confederate States of America">Confederate States of America</a>, while not foreign, qualified as "enemies" for <a href="/info/en/?search=Law_of_war" title="Law of war">law of war</a> purposes,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20224_245-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElsea20224-245">[243]</a></sup> and Baude and Paulsen cite the Court as stating in the <i>Prize Cases</i> that "It is not the less a civil war, with belligerent parties in hostile array, because it may be called an 'insurrection' by one side, and the insurgents be considered as rebels or traitors."<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202385_250-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202385-250">[248]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-251" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-251">[249]</a></sup>
</p><p>In <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Federalist_No._78" title="Federalist No. 78">Federalist No. 78</a></i>, Alexander Hamilton states:
</p>
<link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1211633275"><blockquote class="templatequote"><p>Th[e] exercise of judicial discretion, in determining between two contradictory laws, is exemplified in a familiar instance. It not uncommonly happens, that there are two statutes existing at one time, clashing in whole or in part with each other, and neither of them containing any repealing clause or expression. In such a case, it is the province of the courts to liquidate and fix their meaning and operation. So far as they can, by any fair construction, be reconciled to each other, reason and law conspire to dictate that this should be done; where this is impracticable, it becomes a matter of necessity to give effect to one, in exclusion of the other. The rule which has obtained in the courts for determining their relative validity is, that the last in order of time shall be preferred to the first. But this is a mere rule of construction, not derived from any positive law, but from the nature and reason of the thing. It is a rule not enjoined upon the courts by legislative provision, but adopted by themselves, as consonant to truth and propriety, for the direction of their conduct as interpreters of the law. They thought it reasonable, that between the interfering acts of an EQUAL authority, that which was the last indication of its will should have the preference.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003467_252-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003467-252">[250]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-253" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-253">[251]</a></sup></p></blockquote>
<p>Citing Hamilton in <i>Federalist No. 78</i> and the Supreme Court's rulings in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Chisholm_v._Georgia" title="Chisholm v. Georgia">Chisholm v. Georgia</a></i> (1793) and <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Hollingsworth_v._Virginia" title="Hollingsworth v. Virginia">Hollingsworth v. Virginia</a></i> (1798) before and after the ratification of the <a href="/info/en/?search=Eleventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution">11th Amendment</a>,<sup id="cite_ref-254" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-254">[252]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-255" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-255">[253]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003560_209-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003560-209">[207]</a></sup> Baude and Paulsen argue that Section 3 supersedes or qualifies any prior constitutional provisions with which it could be in conflict and cite the <a href="/info/en/?search=Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States" title="Freedom of speech in the United States">Freedom of Speech Clause</a> of the 1st Amendment specifically.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202349–61_256-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202349–61-256">[254]</a></sup> Baude and Paulsen also cite the text of the Ironclad Oath and the Second Confiscation Act to argue that the use of "enemies" in Section 3 refers to "enemies foreign and domestic" and that "giving aid or comfort" includes providing indirect material assistance.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202367–68_257-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202367–68-257">[255]</a></sup> The CRS, Baude and Paulsen, Graber, and Lynch cite the exclusion of <a href="/info/en/?search=John_Y._Brown_(politician,_born_1835)" title="John Y. Brown (politician, born 1835)">John Y. Brown</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=John_Duncan_Young" title="John Duncan Young">John Duncan Young</a> of Kentucky by the House of Representatives in <a href="/info/en/?search=1866%E2%80%9367_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections" title="1866–67 United States House of Representatives elections">1867</a> for oral or print speech that the House determined qualified for disqualification,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20224_245-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElsea20224-245">[243]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202394–95_258-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202394–95-258">[256]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021197–200_259-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021197–200-259">[257]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a49_260-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a49-260">[258]</a></sup> while Baude and Paulsen also cite the <a href="/info/en/?search=Open_letter" title="Open letter">open letter</a> written by Abraham Lincoln to <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_representatives_from_New_York" title="List of United States representatives from New York">New York Representative</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Erastus_Corning" title="Erastus Corning">Erastus Corning</a> on June 12, 1863, in support of the military arrest of former <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_representatives_from_Ohio" title="List of United States representatives from Ohio">Ohio Representative</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Clement_Vallandigham" title="Clement Vallandigham">Clement Vallandigham</a> in support of their argument that Section 3 qualifies the Freedom of Speech Clause.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202376–79_261-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202376–79-261">[259]</a></sup> Baude and Paulsen, Graber, and Lynch cite the exclusion of former <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Secretary_of_the_Treasury" title="United States Secretary of the Treasury">Secretary of the Treasury</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Philip_Francis_Thomas" title="Philip Francis Thomas">Philip Francis Thomas</a> from the Senate in <a href="/info/en/?search=1866%E2%80%9367_United_States_Senate_elections" title="1866–67 United States Senate elections">1867</a> as an example of disqualification for "giving aid or comfort to ... enemies".<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202396–97_262-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202396–97-262">[260]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a47–48_263-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a47–48-263">[261]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021201_264-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021201-264">[262]</a></sup>
</p><p>The CRS, Baude and Paulsen, Graber, and Lynch also note the <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_representatives_expelled,_censured,_or_reprimanded" title="List of United States representatives expelled, censured, or reprimanded">disqualification and removal</a> of <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_representatives_from_Wisconsin" title="List of United States representatives from Wisconsin">Wisconsin Representative</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Victor_L._Berger" title="Victor L. Berger">Victor L. Berger</a> from the House of Representatives in 1919 under Section 3 after being convicted of treason under the <a href="/info/en/?search=Espionage_Act_of_1917" title="Espionage Act of 1917">Espionage Act of 1917</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20222_67-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElsea20222-67">[67]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202360–61_265-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202360–61-265">[263]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a16,_50_266-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a16,_50-266">[264]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021210–213_267-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021210–213-267">[265]</a></sup> Berger's conviction was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Berger_v._United_States" title="Berger v. United States">Berger v. United States</a></i> (1921) and Berger was reelected and seated from 1923 to 1929.<sup id="cite_ref-268" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-268">[266]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202360–61_265-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202360–61-265">[263]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021213–214_269-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021213–214-269">[267]</a></sup> Graber notes further that Berger had been charged under the Espionage Act because of his opposition to <a href="/info/en/?search=American_entry_into_World_War_I" title="American entry into World War I">U.S. entry into World War I</a> and had urged resistance to <a href="/info/en/?search=Conscription_in_the_United_States" title="Conscription in the United States">conscription</a>,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a50_232-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a50-232">[230]</a></sup> and that in rejecting Berger's claim that Section 3 applied only to ex-Confederates, a report issued by the House of Representatives stated, "It is perfectly true that the entire [14th Amendment] was the child of the Civil War… [but it] is equally true, however, that its provisions are for all time… It is inconceivable that the House of Representatives, which without such an express provision in the Constitution repeatedly asserted its right to exclude Members-elect for disloyalty, should ignore this plain prohibition which has been contained in the fundamental law of the Nation for more than half a century."<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a16_270-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a16-270">[268]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-271" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-271">[c]</a></sup>
</p><p>Blackman and Tillman argue that since engaging in insurrection or rebellion and giving aid or comfort to enemies are textually distinct in Section 3, that Baude and Paulsen conflate engaging in insurrection or rebellion with giving aid or comfort to enemies and in effect create "giving aid or comfort to insurrection" as a criminal offense which does not appear in the text of Section 3.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2023155–184_272-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2023155–184-272">[269]</a></sup> Conversely, the CRS states that while a criminal conviction for insurrection or treason under Section 2383 or 2381, respectively, of Title 18 of the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Code" title="United States Code">United States Code</a> would presumably be <a href="/info/en/?search=Necessity_and_sufficiency" title="Necessity and sufficiency">sufficient</a> for determining whether specific individuals are disqualified under Section 3,<sup id="cite_ref-274" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-274">[d]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-auto_275-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-auto-275">[271]</a></sup> the definitions of "insurrection" and "rebellion" for the purpose of Section 3 disqualification would not necessarily be confined by statute.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20223–4_276-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElsea20223–4-276">[272]</a></sup> Similarly, Lynch argues that conviction under Section 2383 as a necessary condition for Section 3 disqualification is not a model standard because there are no apparent cases of a defendant ever being convicted under Section 2383, and because the statute also does not include federally-recognized rebellions or insurrections against state governments.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021181_277-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021181-277">[273]</a></sup> Section 2383 is the codified version of Sections 2 and 3 of the Second Confiscation Act that was retained in the <a href="/info/en/?search=Revised_Statutes_of_the_United_States" title="Revised Statutes of the United States">Revised Statutes of the United States</a> in 1874,<sup id="cite_ref-278" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-278">[274]</a></sup> in a subsequent codification of federal penal statutes in 1909,<sup id="cite_ref-279" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-279">[275]</a></sup> and ultimately in the United States Code in 1948,<sup id="cite_ref-280" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-280">[276]</a></sup> but it applies disqualification only from "offices under the United States" (i.e. federal offices) while Section 3 also applies disqualification from state offices.<sup id="cite_ref-USC_Title_18_Section_2383_273-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-USC_Title_18_Section_2383-273">[270]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-282" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-282">[e]</a></sup>
</p><p>Likewise, Section 2381 is the codified version of Sections 1 and 3 of the Second Confiscation Act together with Section 1 of the <a href="/info/en/?search=Crimes_Act_of_1790" title="Crimes Act of 1790">Crimes Act of 1790</a> that was ultimately retained through the same codifications, and it also applies disqualification only from federal offices and not from state offices.<sup id="cite_ref-283" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-283">[278]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-284" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-284">[f]</a></sup> In <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Ex_parte_Bollman" title="Ex parte Bollman">Ex parte Bollman</a></i> (1807), the Supreme Court stated that "if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors."<sup id="cite_ref-285" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-285">[279]</a></sup> Citing <i>Ex parte Bollman</i>, <i>United States v. Burr</i>, the <i>Prize Cases</i>,<sup id="cite_ref-286" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-286">[280]</a></sup> <i>United States v. Vigol</i> (1795),<sup id="cite_ref-287" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-287">[281]</a></sup> <i>United States v. Mitchell I</i> (1795),<sup id="cite_ref-288" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-288">[282]</a></sup> and <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Ex_parte_Vallandigham" title="Ex parte Vallandigham">Ex parte Vallandigham</a></i> (1864),<sup id="cite_ref-289" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-289">[283]</a></sup> and surveying federal and state case law on insurrection and treason prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Graber argues that the original public meaning of "insurrection" and "treason" were understood to be any assemblage resisting a federal law by force for a public purpose,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a24–40_290-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a24–40-290">[284]</a></sup> and that "engaging" in an insurrection was understood to broadly include performing any role in an attempt to obstruct the execution of a federal law.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a44–51_291-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a44–51-291">[285]</a></sup> In <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Brandenburg_v._Ohio" title="Brandenburg v. Ohio">Brandenburg v. Ohio</a></i> (1969), the Supreme Court established a two-part test for speech qualifying as incitement and without protection by the 1st Amendment if that speech is:
</p>
<ol><li>"directed to inciting or producing <a href="/info/en/?search=Imminent_lawless_action" title="Imminent lawless action">imminent lawless action</a>"; and</li>
<li>"likely to incite or produce such action".<sup id="cite_ref-292" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-292">[286]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-293" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-293">[287]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-294" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-294">[288]</a></sup></li></ol>
<p>In November 2022, the <a href="/info/en/?search=New_Mexico_Supreme_Court" title="New Mexico Supreme Court">New Mexico Supreme Court</a> upheld the removal and lifetime disqualification from public office of <a href="/info/en/?search=Otero_County,_New_Mexico" title="Otero County, New Mexico">Otero County</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=County_commission" title="County commission">Board Commissioner</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Couy_Griffin" title="Couy Griffin">Couy Griffin</a> under Section 3 by <a href="/info/en/?search=Courts_of_New_Mexico" title="Courts of New Mexico">New Mexico District Court</a> Judge Francis J. Mathew the previous September after District of Columbia U.S. District Court Judge <a href="/info/en/?search=Trevor_N._McFadden" title="Trevor N. McFadden">Trevor N. McFadden</a> ruled that Griffin was guilty of <a href="/info/en/?search=Trespass" title="Trespass">trespassing</a> during the January 6 Capitol attack in March 2022.<sup id="cite_ref-295" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-295">[289]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-296" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-296">[290]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-297" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-297">[291]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20222_67-3" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElsea20222-67">[67]</a></sup> The New Mexico Supreme Court reaffirmed its decision in February 2023.<sup id="cite_ref-298" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-298">[292]</a></sup> The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Griffin's appeal in March 2024.<sup id="cite_ref-299" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-299">[293]</a></sup>
</p><p>As of December 2022, about <a href="/info/en/?search=Criminal_proceedings_in_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack" title="Criminal proceedings in the January 6 United States Capitol attack">290 out of over 910 defendants associated with the January 6 Capitol attack</a> had been charged with obstructing an official proceeding, with over 70 convicted.<sup id="cite_ref-300" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-300">[294]</a></sup> In December 2023, the Supreme Court granted a writ of <i>certiorari</i> in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Fischer_v._United_States" title="Fischer v. United States">Fischer v. United States</a></i> (2024) following the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_District_of_Columbia_Circuit" title="United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit">U.S. District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals</a> panel ruling (with <a href="/info/en/?search=Florence_Y._Pan" title="Florence Y. Pan">Florence Y. Pan</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=Justin_R._Walker" title="Justin R. Walker">Justin R. Walker</a>, and <a href="/info/en/?search=Gregory_G._Katsas" title="Gregory G. Katsas">Gregory G. Katsas</a> presiding) that reversed the ruling of District of Columbia U.S. District Court Judge <a href="/info/en/?search=Carl_J._Nichols" title="Carl J. Nichols">Carl J. Nichols</a> that obstructing an official proceeding is limited to documents tampering.<sup id="cite_ref-301" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-301">[295]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-302" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-302">[296]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBerris20232–3_303-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBerris20232–3-303">[297]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-304" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-304">[298]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Enforcement_of_Section_3">Enforcement of Section 3</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=12" title="Edit section: Enforcement of Section 3"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3>
<h4><span class="mw-headline" id="Self-executing_or_congressional_enforcement">Self-executing or congressional enforcement</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=13" title="Edit section: Self-executing or congressional enforcement"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h4>
<link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1033289096"><div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">See also: <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_presidential_eligibility_legislation" title="United States presidential eligibility legislation">United States presidential eligibility legislation</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=Barack_Obama_presidential_eligibility_litigation" title="Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation">Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation</a></div>
<p>In its September 2022 report on Section 3, the CRS states that it is unclear whether Section 3 is "self-executing", that Section 3 does not establish a procedure for determining whether specific persons are disqualified under its terms, and that Congress has not passed legislation for creating such a procedure.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20223–4_276-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElsea20223–4-276">[272]</a></sup> The <a href="/info/en/?search=Supremacy_Clause" title="Supremacy Clause">Supremacy Clause</a> of Article VI states that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003555_305-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003555-305">[299]</a></sup> Citing the Supremacy Clause, Baude and Paulsen argue that Section 3 is "legally self-executing" in that it does not require additional legislation to effectuate it and make it legally operative.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202317–35_306-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202317–35-306">[300]</a></sup> In arguing its terms are legally self-executing, Baude and Paulsen compare the text of Section 3 to the text of the <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_2:_Qualifications_of_Members" title="Article One of the United States Constitution">House Qualifications Clause of Article I, Section II</a>,<sup id="cite_ref-307" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-307">[g]</a></sup> the <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_3:_Qualifications_of_senators" title="Article One of the United States Constitution">Senate Qualifications Clause of Article I, Section III</a>,<sup id="cite_ref-308" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-308">[h]</a></sup> and the <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Qualifications_for_office" title="Article Two of the United States Constitution">Presidential Qualifications Clause of Article II, Section I</a>,<sup id="cite_ref-310" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-310">[i]</a></sup> in noting that none of the clauses include a <a href="/info/en/?search=Enumerated_powers_(United_States)" title="Enumerated powers (United States)">delegation of power</a> to any organ of the government for their enforcement.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202317–18_311-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202317–18-311">[302]</a></sup> The <a href="/info/en/?search=Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution">22nd Amendment</a> also does not delegate power to any organ of the government for its <a href="/info/en/?search=Congressional_power_of_enforcement" title="Congressional power of enforcement">enforcement</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-312" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-312">[j]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003565–566_313-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003565–566-313">[303]</a></sup>
</p><p>In contrast, Baude and Paulsen note that in comparison to the language of Section 3, the Impeachment Power Clause of Article I, Section II,<sup id="cite_ref-314" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-314">[k]</a></sup> the <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_6:_Trial_of_impeachment" title="Article One of the United States Constitution">Impeachment Trial Clause of Article I, Section III</a>,<sup id="cite_ref-315" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-315">[l]</a></sup> the Impeachment Disqualification Clause of Article I, Section III,<sup id="cite_ref-316" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-316">[m]</a></sup> the Impeachment Clause of Article II, Section IV,<sup id="cite_ref-317" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-317">[n]</a></sup> and the Treason Clause of Article III, Section III,<sup id="cite_ref-318" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-318">[o]</a></sup> define their offenses or specify the organs of the government responsible for their enforcement, while Section 3 neither defines its offenses nor specifies which organs of the government must enforce it but provides disqualification to specific persons itself.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202320–21_319-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202320–21-319">[304]</a></sup> While Baude and Paulsen acknowledge the ruling in <i>Griffin's Case</i> (1869) presided over by Chief Justice <a href="/info/en/?search=Salmon_P._Chase" title="Salmon P. Chase">Salmon P. Chase</a> as the Circuit Justice of Virginia where Chase ruled that Section 3 was not self-executing, Baude and Paulsen argue that it was wrongly decided.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202335–49_320-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202335–49-320">[305]</a></sup> In <i>Griffin's Case</i>, a black man named Caesar Griffin was tried and convicted in a case presided over by <a href="/info/en/?search=Hugh_White_Sheffey" title="Hugh White Sheffey">Hugh White Sheffey</a>, whom Griffin's attorney argued was disqualified from serving as a state judge under Section 3 as Sheffey had served as the <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_speakers_of_the_Virginia_House_of_Delegates" title="List of speakers of the Virginia House of Delegates">Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates</a> under the Confederacy.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202335–36_321-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202335–36-321">[306]</a></sup> Blackman and Tillman dispute Baude and Paulsen's interpretation of <i>Griffin's Case</i>, arguing that they apply frameworks of judicial interpretation developed decades after the case to reject it and effectively misconstrue the decision.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202353–133_322-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202353–133-322">[307]</a></sup>
</p><p>Blackman and Tillman argue further that the second treason indictment of Jefferson Davis (which was also presided over by Chase as Circuit Justice of Virginia) is not in tension with <i>Griffin's Case</i> and conclude that the decision in the cases when taken together lead to the conclusion that Section 3 is not self-executing.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2023133–155_323-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2023133–155-323">[308]</a></sup> Conversely, Gerard Magliocca argues that the two decisions are nearly impossible to reconcile since in the case of Jefferson Davis, which occurred months before <i>Griffin's Case</i>, Chase had concluded that Section 3 was self-executing.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202120–21_324-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202120–21-324">[309]</a></sup> Nearly a month after the surrender of the <a href="/info/en/?search=Army_of_Northern_Virginia" title="Army of Northern Virginia">Army of Northern Virginia</a> by <a href="/info/en/?search=General_in_Chief_of_the_Armies_of_the_Confederate_States" title="General in Chief of the Armies of the Confederate States">Confederate General-in-Chief</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Robert_E._Lee" title="Robert E. Lee">Robert E. Lee</a> following the <a href="/info/en/?search=Battle_of_Appomattox_Court_House" title="Battle of Appomattox Court House">Battle of Appomattox Court House</a>, Davis was captured in <a href="/info/en/?search=Irwinville,_Georgia" title="Irwinville, Georgia">Irwinville, Georgia</a> on May 10, 1865, and imprisoned at <a href="/info/en/?search=Fort_Monroe" title="Fort Monroe">Fort Monroe</a> in <a href="/info/en/?search=Virginia" title="Virginia">Virginia</a>, but would be not indicted for treason until May 1866 by <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_District_Court_for_the_Eastern_District_of_Virginia#United_States_Attorneys" title="United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia">Eastern Virginia U.S. Attorney</a> Lucius H. Chandler.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti201720–21,_164_325-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti201720–21,_164-325">[310]</a></sup> In January 1866, Attorney General <a href="/info/en/?search=James_Speed" title="James Speed">James Speed</a> issued an official legal opinion at the request of Congress that concluded that Davis could only be tried for treason in a civil trial rather than a military tribunal and, in accordance with Article III, Section II, only in <a href="/info/en/?search=Virginia_in_the_American_Civil_War" title="Virginia in the American Civil War">Virginia where Davis had led the Confederacy in the Civil War</a> since the Confederate capitol was located in <a href="/info/en/?search=Richmond,_Virginia" title="Richmond, Virginia">Richmond</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017137–152_326-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017137–152-326">[311]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-327" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-327">[p]</a></sup>
</p><p>However, the prosecution was unwilling to try Davis without the presence of Chase as Chief Justice, but Chase declared that he was unwilling to preside over the case because, despite President Andrew Johnson <a href="/info/en/?search=Conclusion_of_the_American_Civil_War#Proclamations" title="Conclusion of the American Civil War">issuing two presidential proclamations in 1866 declaring that the organized resistance to federal authority had ceased</a>, Virginia remained under <a href="/info/en/?search=Martial_law_in_the_United_States" title="Martial law in the United States">martial law</a> at the time as an <a href="/info/en/?search=Reconstruction_Acts" title="Reconstruction Acts">unreconstructed state</a> and he did not wish to make a decision that could be overruled by the military.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017164–171,_195–198_328-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017164–171,_195–198-328">[312]</a></sup> Congress had also passed the <a href="/info/en/?search=Judicial_Circuits_Act" title="Judicial Circuits Act">Judicial Circuits Act</a> which reduced the total number of federal judicial circuits and altered their geographical boundaries including Chase's circuit, and because the law did not specify how the Supreme Court justices would subsequently be assigned, Chase argued that he and the other justices should refuse to carry out circuit duty until Congress amended the law to specify assignments.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017198–199_329-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017198–199-329">[313]</a></sup> In response, Johnson directed Attorney General Henry Stanbery in October 1866 to review what actions Johnson could take to resolve the jurisdiction issue, but Stanbery concluded that the Supreme Court itself could assign the circuits and that Chase was citing technical issues as excuses to not preside over the trial.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017199–200_330-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017199–200-330">[314]</a></sup> After Congress passed an amendment to the Judicial Circuits Act in March 1867 that ordered the Supreme Court to make the assignments, Chase cited a lack of preparation on the part of the prosecution and continuances requested by the government for his not presiding over the trial, as well as his workload as Chief Justice and concerns about his personal safety in Virginia (despite his presiding over the circuit court in North Carolina during the same time period).<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017200–201_331-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017200–201-331">[315]</a></sup>
</p><p>Conversely, as the indictment was receiving extensive newspaper coverage throughout the country at the time,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017153–164,_308–309_332-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017153–164,_308–309-332">[316]</a></sup> multiple Johnson administration officials, former <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Attorney_for_the_Southern_District_of_New_York" title="United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York">Southern New York U.S. Attorney</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Charles_O%27Conor_(American_politician)" title="Charles O'Conor (American politician)">Charles O'Conor</a> (who served as the lead defense counsel for Davis), and historians have suggested that Chase had presidential ambitions that Chase did not want to risk by presiding over the case.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017193–194,_201_333-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017193–194,_201-333">[317]</a></sup> Chase's refusal to preside effectively led to the 1866 indictment being <a href="/info/en/?search=Motion_to_quash" title="Motion to quash">quashed</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017164–171_334-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017164–171-334">[318]</a></sup> Davis remained imprisoned at Fort Monroe until he was released on bail in May 1867, and was relinquished by the military commander at Fort Monroe into civil custody under a writ of <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Habeas_corpus" title="Habeas corpus">habeas corpus</a></i>.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017280_335-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017280-335">[319]</a></sup> In November 1867, a grand jury heard testimony against Davis for a second treason indictment, and the grand jury issued the second indictment in March 1868.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017266–270_336-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017266–270-336">[320]</a></sup> After refusing to consult with Johnson on the indictment and as he sought the presidential nomination at the <a href="/info/en/?search=1868_Democratic_National_Convention" title="1868 Democratic National Convention">1868 Democratic National Convention</a>,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017192–195,_293_337-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017192–195,_293-337">[321]</a></sup> Chase shared his view on Section 3 with Davis' attorneys privately that the clause was self-executing.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017204,_294–296_338-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017204,_294–296-338">[322]</a></sup> In November 1868, Davis' attorneys filed a <a href="/info/en/?search=Motion_(legal)#To_dismiss" title="Motion (legal)">motion to dismiss</a> the indictment on the basis that Section 3 was self-executing.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017296_339-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017296-339">[323]</a></sup> As Davis had served as a Representative and <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_senators_from_Mississippi" title="List of United States senators from Mississippi">Senator from Mississippi</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Secretary_of_War" title="United States Secretary of War">U.S. Secretary of War</a> during the <a href="/info/en/?search=Presidency_of_Franklin_Pierce" title="Presidency of Franklin Pierce">Franklin Pierce administration</a> before serving as the president of the Confederate States, his attorneys argued that Section 3 precluded the treason indictment and would violate the principle of <a href="/info/en/?search=Double_jeopardy" title="Double jeopardy">double jeopardy</a> (making the indictment unconstitutional), while the prosecution argued that Section 3 did not provide a criminal punishment and was not applicable in the case.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202121–24_340-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202121–24-340">[324]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017296–299_341-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017296–299-341">[325]</a></sup>
</p><p>After Chase and <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_former_United_States_district_courts#Virginia" title="List of former United States district courts">Virginia U.S. District Court</a> Judge <a href="/info/en/?search=John_Curtiss_Underwood" title="John Curtiss Underwood">John Curtiss Underwood</a> split on the motion to dismiss (with Chase voting in favor of the motion and Underwood voting to sustain the indictment), the case was granted a writ of <i>certiorari</i> by the Supreme Court but was ultimately rendered moot when Johnson granted <a href="/info/en/?search=Pardons_for_ex-Confederates" title="Pardons for ex-Confederates">pardons for ex-Confederates</a> including Davis in December 1868, and the prosecution formally withdrew the indictment in the early months of the next year.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202124_342-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202124-342">[326]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017299–300_343-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017299–300-343">[327]</a></sup> While initially wanting Davis to be tried for treason since there was no evidence to implicate Davis in the <a href="/info/en/?search=Assassination_of_Abraham_Lincoln" title="Assassination of Abraham Lincoln">assassination of Abraham Lincoln</a> or the treatment of <a href="/info/en/?search=Union_Army" title="Union Army">Union Army</a> soldiers as <a href="/info/en/?search=Prisoner_of_war" title="Prisoner of war">prisoners of war</a> at <a href="/info/en/?search=Andersonville_Prison" title="Andersonville Prison">Andersonville Prison</a> in Georgia,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti201732–38_344-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti201732–38-344">[328]</a></sup> Johnson and <a href="/info/en/?search=Presidency_of_Andrew_Johnson#Administration" title="Presidency of Andrew Johnson">his Cabinet</a> decided that granting Davis a pardon was the best course of action due to their surprise that the Supreme Court issued the writ of <i>certiorari</i> and at Chase's sympathy towards the defense counsel's motion,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017299_345-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017299-345">[329]</a></sup> as well as the concern that an acquittal of Davis would constitutionally validate secession.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti20176–7,_266–276_346-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti20176–7,_266–276-346">[330]</a></sup> Despite the pardon, Congress would not remove the Section 3 disqualification from Davis until 1978 when it also restored his citizenship posthumously.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMagliocca20212,_64–68_347-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMagliocca20212,_64–68-347">[331]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus202310_348-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus202310-348">[332]</a></sup> Under <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_1:_Command_of_military;_Opinions_of_cabinet_secretaries;_Pardons" title="Article Two of the United States Constitution">Article II, Section II</a>, "The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States".<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003551_105-4" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003551-105">[103]</a></sup>
</p><p>While the Supreme Court had held in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Ex_parte_Garland" title="Ex parte Garland">Ex parte Garland</a></i> (1867) that a full <a href="/info/en/?search=Federal_pardons_in_the_United_States" title="Federal pardons in the United States">presidential pardon</a> "releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt... as if [the offender] had never committed the offence... [and if] granted before conviction... prevents any of the penalties and disabilities... upon conviction from attaching",<sup id="cite_ref-349" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-349">[333]</a></sup> the Supreme Court subsequently held in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Burdick_v._United_States" title="Burdick v. United States">Burdick v. United States</a></i> (1915) that a pardon "carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it."<sup id="cite_ref-350" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-350">[334]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-351" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-351">[335]</a></sup> Chase and Underwood would likewise differ over whether Section 3 was self-executing in <i>Griffin's Case</i>, with Chase arguing that Section 3 was not and Underwood arguing that Section 3 was.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202124–29_352-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202124–29-352">[336]</a></sup> Lynch and Graber note that Hugh White Sheffey's attorney had conceded Section 3 disqualification <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Arguendo" title="Arguendo">arguendo</a></i>, but rejected an <i>ex proprio vigore</i> interpretation of Section 3 (i.e. disqualification without <a href="/info/en/?search=Due_process" title="Due process">due process</a>) with which Chase agreed.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021203–206_353-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021203–206-353">[337]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a11_354-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a11-354">[338]</a></sup> During congressional debate on Section 3, Pennsylvania Representative Thaddeus Stevens stated that "[I]f this amendment prevails, you must legislate to carry out many parts of it. ... It will not execute itself, but as soon as it becomes a law, Congress at the next session will legislate to carry it out both in reference to the presidential and all other elections as we have a right to do."<sup id="cite_ref-355" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-355">[339]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202327–28_356-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202327–28-356">[340]</a></sup> In his remarks in the final house debate, Stevens reiterated, "I see no hope of safety [except] in the prescription of proper enabling acts".<sup id="cite_ref-Congressional_Globe_6-13-1866_198-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Congressional_Globe_6-13-1866-198">[196]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202338–39_199-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202338–39-199">[197]</a></sup>
</p><p>Citing Stevens and remarks made by <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_senators_from_Illinois" title="List of United States senators from Illinois">Illinois Senator</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Lyman_Trumbull" title="Lyman Trumbull">Lyman Trumbull</a> in congressional debate on the Enforcement Act of 1870, Lash argues that many members of Congress during the drafting history of Section 3 believed that the clause required enabling legislation.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202350–51,_55–56_357-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202350–51,_55–56-357">[341]</a></sup> Lash also cites the Military Reconstruction Acts as evidence of how Section 3 required congressional enforcement legislation for the Electoral College.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202354–55_358-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202354–55-358">[342]</a></sup> Also citing <i>Griffin's Case</i>,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202355–56_359-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202355–56-359">[343]</a></sup> Lash concludes, as with whether Section 3 applies to the presidential oath of office and to holding the Presidency and post-Civil War insurrections and rebellions, that it is unclear whether Section 3 is self-executing considering that it was interpreted both ways during its drafting, ratification, and contemporaneous effectuation.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202357–62_200-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202357–62-200">[198]</a></sup> Magliocca argues that Chase's argument against Section 3 being self-executing in <i>Griffin's Case</i> is not persuasive primarily due to Chase's reversal between the two cases and because there is no evidence that when Congress drafted the 14th Amendment that Congress viewed Section 3 as requiring enforcement legislation, and Magliocca argues further that Underwood's positions in the two cases was more consistent and faithful to the text.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202129–34_360-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202129–34-360">[344]</a></sup> Likewise, Graber argues that there is no evidence from congressional debate during the drafting of the 14th Amendment that members of Congress thought that Section 3 was not self-executing, and Graber goes on to state that state governments enacted their own enforcement legislation for Section 3 and held persons disqualified under its terms in the absence of federal enforcement legislation and that Congress did nothing to reverse the decisions.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a7–12_361-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a7–12-361">[345]</a></sup>
</p><p>Graber states that Chase's opinion in <i>Griffin's Case</i> is the only counterexample following the ratification of the 14th Amendment of a court or legislative proceeding concluding that Section 3 was not self-executing, and that since state government Section 3 disqualification proceedings continued without congressional enforcement legislation after <i>Griffin's Case</i> was decided, Graber argues that <i>Griffin's Case</i> is not persuasive evidence against the original public understanding of Section 3 as being self-executing and agrees with Magliocca that Chase's reversal between the Jefferson Davis treason indictment and <i>Griffin's Case</i> casts doubt on the validity of Chase's arguments in the two cases.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a11_354-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a11-354">[338]</a></sup> While noting the Court's opinions in <i>Durousseau v. United States</i> (1810) and <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Ex_parte_McCardle" title="Ex parte McCardle">Ex parte McCardle</a></i> (1869),<sup id="cite_ref-362" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-362">[346]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-363" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-363">[347]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202320–22_364-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202320–22-364">[348]</a></sup> Blackman and Tillman argue that, as an analogue to Section 3, the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction under the Appellate Jurisdiction Clause is not clearly self-executing citing <i>Wiscart v. D'Auchy</i> (1796),<sup id="cite_ref-365" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-365">[349]</a></sup> <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Turner_v._Bank_of_North_America" title="Turner v. Bank of North America">Turner v. Bank of North America</a></i> (1799),<sup id="cite_ref-366" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-366">[350]</a></sup> <i>Barry v. Mercein</i> (1847),<sup id="cite_ref-367" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-367">[351]</a></sup> <i>Daniels v. Railroad Company</i> (1865),<sup id="cite_ref-368" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-368">[352]</a></sup> and <i>The Francis Wright</i> (1881);<sup id="cite_ref-369" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-369">[353]</a></sup> and, citing the CRS as suggesting that the prevailing opinion among legal scholars today is that the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction is not self-executing, Blackman and Tillman also claim that the issue of whether or not it is remains a matter of debate.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202322–26_370-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202322–26-370">[354]</a></sup>
</p><p>Noting that, despite the age requirements for membership in Article I, the House of Representatives chose to seat <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_representatives_from_Tennessee" title="List of United States representatives from Tennessee">Tennessee Representative</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=William_C._C._Claiborne" title="William C. C. Claiborne">William C. C. Claiborne</a> for the <a href="/info/en/?search=5th_United_States_Congress" title="5th United States Congress">5th United States Congress</a>, that the Senate chose to seat <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_senators_from_Kentucky" title="List of United States senators from Kentucky">Kentucky Senator</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Henry_Clay" title="Henry Clay">Henry Clay</a> for the <a href="/info/en/?search=9th_United_States_Congress" title="9th United States Congress">9th United States Congress</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_senators_from_Virginia" title="List of United States senators from Virginia">Virginia Senator</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Armistead_Thomson_Mason" title="Armistead Thomson Mason">Armistead Thomson Mason</a> for the <a href="/info/en/?search=14th_United_States_Congress" title="14th United States Congress">14th United States Congress</a>, and Tennessee Senator <a href="/info/en/?search=John_Eaton_(politician)" title="John Eaton (politician)">John Eaton</a> for the <a href="/info/en/?search=15th_United_States_Congress" title="15th United States Congress">15th United States Congress</a>, and that the Senate dismissed a complaint brought by incumbent West Virginia Senator <a href="/info/en/?search=Henry_D._Hatfield" title="Henry D. Hatfield">Henry D. Hatfield</a> following the <a href="/info/en/?search=1934_United_States_Senate_elections" title="1934 United States Senate elections">1934 Senate elections</a> to not seat <a href="/info/en/?search=Rush_Holt_Sr." title="Rush Holt Sr.">Rush Holt Sr.</a> for the <a href="/info/en/?search=74th_United_States_Congress" title="74th United States Congress">74th United States Congress</a>, Blackman and Tillman argue that the Article I membership qualifications have been enforced by Congress in a discretionary manner rather than a self-executing one.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202327–31_371-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202327–31-371">[355]</a></sup> Blackman and Tillman also note that the House of Representatives had seated Victor L. Berger for the <a href="/info/en/?search=66th_United_States_Congress" title="66th United States Congress">66th United States Congress</a> despite his conviction under the Espionage Act in February 1919 and did not remove him from his seat under Section 3 until the following November,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202331–34_372-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202331–34-372">[356]</a></sup> and that Clay, Mason, and Eaton were chosen by state legislatures—whose members were bound by the Oath or Affirmation Clause and the Supremacy Clause—in indirect elections prior to the ratification of the 17th Amendment as additional examples that demonstrate that Article I qualifications are enforced by discretion and are not self-executing.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202334–36_373-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202334–36-373">[357]</a></sup>
</p><p>Similarly, historian <a href="/info/en/?search=David_T._Beito" title="David T. Beito">David T. Beito</a> has noted that while <a href="/info/en/?search=Eugene_V._Debs" title="Eugene V. Debs">Eugene V. Debs</a> had served as a member of the <a href="/info/en/?search=Indiana_House_of_Representatives" title="Indiana House of Representatives">Indiana House of Representatives</a> and was later convicted under the <a href="/info/en/?search=Sedition_Act_of_1918" title="Sedition Act of 1918">Sedition Act of 1918</a>, Debs still appeared on the ballot in at least 40 states as the <a href="/info/en/?search=Socialist_Party_of_America" title="Socialist Party of America">Socialist Party</a> presidential nominee in the <a href="/info/en/?search=1920_United_States_presidential_election" title="1920 United States presidential election">1920 presidential election</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-374" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-374">[358]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Southwick_375-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Southwick-375">[359]</a></sup> Also in contrast to Berger, Debs' conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Debs_v._United_States" title="Debs v. United States">Debs v. United States</a></i> (1919).<sup id="cite_ref-376" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-376">[360]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Southwick_375-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Southwick-375">[359]</a></sup> Conversely, Baude and Paulsen argue that the problem of enforcement while real is a <a href="/info/en/?search=Formal_fallacy" title="Formal fallacy">non-sequitur</a> from the question of whether Section 3 is self-executing because "...the meaning of the Constitution comes first. Officials must enforce the Constitution because it is law; it is wrong to think that it only becomes law if they decide to enforce it."<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202322_377-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202322-377">[361]</a></sup> Blackman and Tillman cite the <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Slaughter-House_Cases" title="Slaughter-House Cases">Slaughter-House Cases</a></i> (1873),<sup id="cite_ref-378" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-378">[362]</a></sup> <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Bradwell_v._Illinois" title="Bradwell v. Illinois">Bradwell v. Illinois</a></i> (1873),<sup id="cite_ref-379" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-379">[363]</a></sup> <i><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_v._Cruikshank" title="United States v. Cruikshank">United States v. Cruikshank</a></i> (1876),<sup id="cite_ref-380" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-380">[364]</a></sup> <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Plessy_v._Ferguson" title="Plessy v. Ferguson">Plessy v. Ferguson</a></i> (1896),<sup id="cite_ref-381" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-381">[365]</a></sup> <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Ex_parte_Young" title="Ex parte Young">Ex parte Young</a></i> (1908),<sup id="cite_ref-382" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-382">[366]</a></sup> and <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Bivens_v._Six_Unknown_Named_Agents" title="Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents">Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents</a></i> (1971) in arguing that <a href="/info/en/?search=Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_1:_Citizenship_and_civil_rights" title="Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Section 1 of the 14th Amendment</a> is only self-executing where there is federal enforcement legislation for an applicant seeking affirmative relief in a <a href="/info/en/?search=Cause_of_action" title="Cause of action">cause of action</a> under the section or as a defense in litigation or prosecution against an enforcement action,<sup id="cite_ref-383" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-383">[367]</a></sup> and Blackman and Tillman argue that Baude and Paulsen fail to account for this dichotomy in arguing that Section 1 is self-executing.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202338–53_384-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202338–53-384">[368]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202319_385-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202319-385">[369]</a></sup>
</p><p>Blackman and Tillman also claim that the plaintiffs in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Shelley_v._Kraemer" title="Shelley v. Kraemer">Shelley v. Kraemer</a></i> (1948),<sup id="cite_ref-386" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-386">[370]</a></sup> <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Brown_v._Board_of_Education" title="Brown v. Board of Education">Brown v. Board of Education</a></i> (1954),<sup id="cite_ref-Brown_v._Board_of_Education_387-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Brown_v._Board_of_Education-387">[371]</a></sup> <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Roe_v._Wade" title="Roe v. Wade">Roe v. Wade</a></i> (1973),<sup id="cite_ref-Roe_v._Wade_388-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Roe_v._Wade-388">[372]</a></sup> and <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Obergefell_v._Hodges" title="Obergefell v. Hodges">Obergefell v. Hodges</a></i> (2015) invoked the <a href="/info/en/?search=Second_Enforcement_Act" title="Second Enforcement Act">Second Enforcement Act of 1871</a> as codified in Section 1983 of <a href="/info/en/?search=Title_42_of_the_United_States_Code" title="Title 42 of the United States Code">Title 42 of the United States Code</a> for relief as examples.<sup id="cite_ref-Obergefell_v._Hodges_389-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Obergefell_v._Hodges-389">[373]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202339,_46_390-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202339,_46-390">[374]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-391" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-391">[375]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-394" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-394">[q]</a></sup> Conversely, Magliocca agrees with Baude and Paulsen that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is self-executing,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202130_395-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202130-395">[378]</a></sup> and Graber argues that there is no evidence from congressional debate during the drafting of the 14th Amendment that members of Congress thought that any provision of the 14th Amendment was not self-executing.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a7–12_361-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a7–12-361">[345]</a></sup> Noting that the House chose to seat Berger from 1923 until 1929 without an amnesty resolution passed with a two-thirds majority as required by Section 3 and citing <i>Ex parte Virginia</i> (1880) and <i><a href="/info/en/?search=City_of_Boerne_v._Flores" title="City of Boerne v. Flores">City of Boerne v. Flores</a></i> (1997),<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021213–214_269-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021213–214-269">[267]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-396" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-396">[379]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-397" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-397">[380]</a></sup> Lynch argues that subsequent to <i>Griffin's Case</i> that the 14th Amendment as a whole was reconceptualized as being primarily judicially enforceable rather than congressionally enforceable.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021206–207_398-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021206–207-398">[381]</a></sup> In the <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Civil_Rights_Cases" title="Civil Rights Cases">Civil Rights Cases</a></i> (1883), the Supreme Court stated that "the [14th Amendment] is undoubtedly self-executing, without any ancillary legislation, so far as its terms are applicable to any existing state of circumstances."<sup id="cite_ref-399" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-399">[382]</a></sup>
</p>
<h4><span class="mw-headline" id="Civil_action_or_criminal_conviction">Civil action or criminal conviction</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=14" title="Edit section: Civil action or criminal conviction"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h4>
<p>The CRS notes that the text of Section 3 does not explicitly require a criminal conviction for disqualification and that ex-Confederate officials disqualified during <a href="/info/en/?search=Reconstruction_era" title="Reconstruction era">Reconstruction</a> were instead barred by <a href="/info/en/?search=Civil_procedure_in_the_United_States" title="Civil procedure in the United States">civil actions</a> brought by <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Attorney" title="United States Attorney">federal prosecutors</a> or by Congress refusing to seat elected ex-Confederate candidates for Congress under the <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_1:_Electoral_judgement;_Quorum" title="Article One of the United States Constitution">Electoral Judgement Clause of Article I, Section V</a>,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20222_67-4" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElsea20222-67">[67]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003545_73-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003545-73">[73]</a></sup> while Lynch notes that Section 3 challenges for an incumbent member of Congress would occur under the <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_2:_Rules" title="Article One of the United States Constitution">Expulsion Clause of Article I, Section V</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021194–195_400-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021194–195-400">[383]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003545_73-3" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003545-73">[73]</a></sup> Referencing the exclusion of Victor L. Berger by the House of Representatives in 1919, the expulsions of members of Congress during the Civil War for supporting the Confederacy, and the exclusions of members-elect under Section 3 during Reconstruction,<sup id="cite_ref-401" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-401">[384]</a></sup> the Supreme Court held in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Powell_v._McCormack" title="Powell v. McCormack">Powell v. McCormack</a></i> (1969) that Congress may only exclude duly-elected members under qualifications that are constitutionally prescribed and that the controversy presented was not a political question.<sup id="cite_ref-402" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-402">[385]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-CRS_8-12-2002_403-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-CRS_8-12-2002-403">[386]</a></sup> During the drafting of the 14th Amendment, West Virginia Senator <a href="/info/en/?search=Waitman_T._Willey" title="Waitman T. Willey">Waitman T. Willey</a> stated that the Section 3 disqualification was:
</p>
<link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1211633275"><blockquote class="templatequote"><p>not…penal in its character, it is precautionary. It looks not to the past, but it has reference, as I understand it, wholly to the future. It is a measure of self-defense. It is designed to prevent a repetition of treason by these men, and being a permanent provision of the Constitution, it is intended to operate as a preventive of treason hereafter by holding out to the people of the United States that such will the penalty of the offense if they dare commit it. It is therefore not a measure of punishment, but a measure of self-defense.<sup id="cite_ref-404" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-404">[387]</a></sup></p></blockquote>
<p>Likewise, Maine Senator Lot M. Morrill stated that there is "an obvious distinction between the penalty which the State affixes to a crime and that disability which the state imposes and has the right to impose against persons whom it does not choose to [e]ntrust with official station",<sup id="cite_ref-405" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-405">[388]</a></sup> while <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_senators_from_Missouri" title="List of United States senators from Missouri">Missouri Senator</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=John_B._Henderson" title="John B. Henderson">John B. Henderson</a> stated that Section 3 "is an act fixing the qualifications of officers and not an act for the punishment of crime. … [P]unishment means to take away life, liberty, or property."<sup id="cite_ref-406" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-406">[389]</a></sup> Citing Morrill, Henderson, and Willey, Graber argues that most members of Congress during the 39th United States Congress understood Section 3 to be a qualification for public office and not a punishment for a criminal offense.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a12–13_407-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a12–13-407">[390]</a></sup> While the CRS notes that there is debate among legal scholars about whether Congress has the authority to pass legislation to name specific individuals disqualified under Section 3 due to the <a href="/info/en/?search=Bill_of_attainder#United_States" title="Bill of attainder">Bill of Attainder Clause</a> of Article I, Section IX,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20225_237-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElsea20225-237">[235]</a></sup> Baude and Paulsen argue that Section 3 qualifies the clause as well as the Bill of Attainder Clause of <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_10:_Limits_on_the_States" title="Article One of the United States Constitution">Article I, Section X</a> and the <a href="/info/en/?search=Ex_post_facto_law#United_States" title="Ex post facto law"><i>Ex post facto</i> Law Clauses</a> of Article I, Section IX and Section X and the <a href="/info/en/?search=Due_Process_Clause" title="Due Process Clause">Due Process Clause</a> of the 5th Amendment along with the Freedom of Speech Clause.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202349–61_256-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202349–61-256">[254]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003548–549_408-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003548–549-408">[391]</a></sup> The Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment states that "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003559_409-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003559-409">[392]</a></sup>
</p><p>Noting the text of the Due Process Clause and citing the Supreme Court in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Taylor_v._Beckham" title="Taylor v. Beckham">Taylor v. Beckham</a></i> (1900) as stating that "The decisions are numerous to the effect that public offices are mere agencies or trusts, and not property as such",<sup id="cite_ref-410" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-410">[393]</a></sup> Baude and Paulsen argue that holding public office in the United States—as it is a <a href="/info/en/?search=Republic" title="Republic">republic</a> rather than a <a href="/info/en/?search=Constitutional_monarchy" title="Constitutional monarchy">constitutional monarchy</a> like the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_Kingdom" title="United Kingdom">United Kingdom</a> with <a href="/info/en/?search=Hereditary_peer" title="Hereditary peer">hereditary peerage</a>—is a public privilege and <a href="/info/en/?search=Public_trust" title="Public trust">public trust</a> and not clearly a form of "life, liberty, or property" to which persons have a personal or private right protected from deprivation by due process.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202356–57_411-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202356–57-411">[394]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-414" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-414">[r]</a></sup> The Foreign Emoluments Clause states that "No <a href="/info/en/?search=Nobility" title="Nobility">Title of Nobility</a> shall be granted by the United States",<sup id="cite_ref-CRS_1-27-2021_133-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-CRS_1-27-2021-133">[131]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003549_161-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003549-161">[159]</a></sup> while the <a href="/info/en/?search=Contract_Clause" title="Contract Clause">Contract Clause</a> of Article I, Section X provides that "No State shall … grant any Title of Nobility."<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003549_161-3" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003549-161">[159]</a></sup> In <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Snowden_v._Hughes" title="Snowden v. Hughes">Snowden v. Hughes</a></i> (1944), the Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding in <i>Taylor v. Beckham</i> that holding a state office is not a right of property or liberty secured by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and being a candidate for state office is not a right or privilege protected by the <a href="/info/en/?search=Privileges_and_Immunities_Clause" title="Privileges and Immunities Clause">Privileges and Immunities Clause</a> of <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_2:_Rights_of_state_citizens;_rights_of_extradition" title="Article Four of the United States Constitution">Article IV, Section II</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEAmado202219_415-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEAmado202219-415">[397]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-416" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-416">[398]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003554,_561_417-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003554,_561-417">[399]</a></sup> Baude and Paulsen also note that the Supreme Court in <i>Ex parte Garland</i> and <i>Cummings v. Missouri</i> (1867) explicitly distinguished the criminal punishments in bills of attainder and <i>ex post facto</i> laws from constitutional qualifications for public office.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202353–54_418-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202353–54-418">[400]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-419" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-419">[401]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-420" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-420">[402]</a></sup>
</p><p>While the <a href="/info/en/?search=Double_Jeopardy_Clause" title="Double Jeopardy Clause">Double Jeopardy Clause</a> of the <a href="/info/en/?search=Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution">5th Amendment</a> states that "No person... shall... be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb",<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003559_409-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003559-409">[392]</a></sup> the Impeachment Disqualification Clause states that "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification... but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544_72-6" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544-72">[72]</a></sup> Noting that the scope of <a href="/info/en/?search=High_crimes_and_misdemeanors" title="High crimes and misdemeanors">high crimes and misdemeanors</a> in the Impeachment Clause of Article II, Section IV in practice has not been limited to criminal offenses,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEColeGarvey20237–9,_42–43_421-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEColeGarvey20237–9,_42–43-421">[403]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552_33-9" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552-33">[33]</a></sup> the CRS notes that the text of the Impeachment Disqualification Clause establishes that disqualification from public office by conviction in an impeachment trial is constitutionally distinct from a punishment levied for conviction in a criminal trial.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEColeGarvey202314–15_422-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEColeGarvey202314–15-422">[404]</a></sup> While the Supreme Court held in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Nixon_v._United_States" title="Nixon v. United States">Nixon v. United States</a></i> (1993) that whether the Senate had properly tried an impeachment trial under the Impeachment Trial Clause was a political question,<sup id="cite_ref-423" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-423">[405]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-424" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-424">[406]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544_72-7" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544-72">[72]</a></sup> the OLC issued an opinion in 2000 that concluded that it is constitutional to indict and try a former president for the same offenses for which the President was impeached by the House of Representatives and acquitted by the Senate.<sup id="cite_ref-425" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-425">[407]</a></sup>
</p><p>In <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Federalist_No._65" title="Federalist No. 65">Federalist No. 65</a></i>, Alexander Hamilton notes that the power to conduct impeachment trials is delegated to the Senate rather than the Supreme Court to preclude the possibility of double jeopardy because of the language in the Impeachment Disqualification Clause,<sup id="cite_ref-426" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-426">[408]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-427" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-427">[409]</a></sup> stating "Would it be proper that the persons who had disposed [impeached officials of their] fame... in one trial, should, in another trial, for the same offense, be also the disposers of [their] life and ... fortune? Would there not be the greatest reason to apprehend, that error, in the first sentence, would be the parent of error in the second sentence? ... [By] making the same persons judges in both cases, [impeached officials] would... be deprived of the double security intended them by a double trial."<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003394–399_428-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003394–399-428">[410]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-429" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-429">[411]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEColeGarvey202314–15_422-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEColeGarvey202314–15-422">[404]</a></sup> Along with Magliocca and the CRS, Baude and Paulsen note that following Chase's rulings in the Jefferson Davis treason indictment and <i>Griffin's Case</i> that Congress passed the Enforcement Act of 1870 to effectuate Section 3 by permitting federal prosecutors to issue writs of <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Quo_warranto" title="Quo warranto">quo warranto</a></i> for its enforcement,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20224–5_430-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElsea20224–5-430">[412]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMagliocca20213,_34–38_431-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMagliocca20213,_34–38-431">[413]</a></sup> and Baude and Paulsen also note that the Military Reconstruction Act of 1867 also incorporated the text that would ultimately be included in Section 3.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen2023100–104_432-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen2023100–104-432">[414]</a></sup>
</p><p>Subsequently codified in the Revised Statutes of the United States,<sup id="cite_ref-433" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-433">[415]</a></sup> Section 14 of the Enforcement Act of 1870 provided that:
</p>
<link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1211633275"><blockquote class="templatequote"><p>... whenever any person shall hold office, except as a member of Congress or of some State legislature, contrary to the provisions of [Section 3 of the 14th Amendment], it shall be the duty of the district attorney of the United States for the district in which such person shall hold office, as aforesaid, to proceed against such person, by writ of quo warranto, returnable to the circuit or district court of the United States in such district, and to prosecute the same to the removal of such person from office...<sup id="cite_ref-434" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-434">[416]</a></sup></p></blockquote>
<p>While Lynch notes that Section 14 of the Enforcement Act of 1870 was repealed during the codification of the United States Code in 1948,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021206_435-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021206-435">[417]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-436" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-436">[418]</a></sup> the CRS suggests that private parties can still request that a federal judge issue a writ of <i>quo warranto</i> for Section 3 disqualification under Rule 81 of the <a href="/info/en/?search=Federal_Rules_of_Civil_Procedure" title="Federal Rules of Civil Procedure">Federal Rules of Civil Procedure</a> (which were created under the <a href="/info/en/?search=Rules_Enabling_Act" title="Rules Enabling Act">Rules Enabling Act</a> in 1934).<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20224–5_430-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElsea20224–5-430">[412]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-CRS_5-22-2020_62-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-CRS_5-22-2020-62">[62]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Fed._R._Civ._P._R_81_437-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Fed._R._Civ._P._R_81-437">[419]</a></sup> Similarly, Lynch argues that state officeholders may be removed under Section 3 under writs of <i>quo warranto</i>,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021187–188_438-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021187–188-438">[420]</a></sup> and Baude and Paulsen note that the disqualification of Couy Griffin occurred by a <i>quo warranto</i> lawsuit under state law.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202327–29_439-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202327–29-439">[421]</a></sup> Other legal commentators have argued that Griffin's disqualification has established a precedent to bar Trump from office.<sup id="cite_ref-440" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-440">[422]</a></sup> Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in <i>Newman v. United States ex rel. Frizzell</i> (1915) that upheld a <i>quo warranto</i> removal under the <a href="/info/en/?search=Code_of_the_District_of_Columbia" title="Code of the District of Columbia">District of Columbia Code</a>,<sup id="cite_ref-441" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-441">[423]</a></sup> Lynch notes that subsequent federal case law has interpreted the decision as holding that the District of Columbia <i>quo warranto</i> laws apply to all federal offices in the District of Columbia, to officers of the United States, and to members of Congress.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021192–194_442-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021192–194-442">[424]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-443" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-443">[425]</a></sup>
</p><p>Under Article I, Section VIII, "Congress shall have the power … To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District … as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States",<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003548_204-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003548-204">[202]</a></sup> and as amended by Congress in 1963 and 1970, Chapter 35 of Title 16 of the District of Columbia Code provides the District of Columbia U.S. District Court the authority to issue writs of <i>quo warranto</i> against officers of the United States.<sup id="cite_ref-444" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-444">[426]</a></sup> While the Supreme Court held in <i>Nixon v. Fitzgerald</i> that a President is "entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts",<sup id="cite_ref-445" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-445">[427]</a></sup> the Court subsequently held in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Clinton_v._Jones" title="Clinton v. Jones">Clinton v. Jones</a></i> (1997) that "The principal rationale for affording Presidents immunity from damages actions based on their official acts… provides no support for an immunity for <i>unofficial</i> conduct."<sup id="cite_ref-Clinton_v._Jones_p._682_446-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Clinton_v._Jones_p._682-446">[428]</a></sup> The Court further concluded in <i>Clinton v. Jones</i> that "Deferral of [civil] litigation until [a] Presidency ends is not constitutionally required" because the <a href="/info/en/?search=Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Separation of powers under the United States Constitution">constitutional separation of powers</a> "does not require federal courts to stay all private actions against the President until he leaves office" and that the constitutional separation of powers doctrine does not apply "[where] there is no suggestion that the Federal Judiciary is being asked to perform any function that might in some way be described as 'executive'… and … there is no possibility that the decision … will curtail the scope of the Executive Branch's official powers."<sup id="cite_ref-447" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-447">[429]</a></sup>
</p><p>Reiterating its holdings in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._v._Sawyer" title="Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer">Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer</a></i> (1952) and <i><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_v._Nixon" title="United States v. Nixon">United States v. Nixon</a></i> (1974),<sup id="cite_ref-448" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-448">[430]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-449" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-449">[431]</a></sup> the Court noted that "it is settled that the Judiciary may severely burden the Executive Branch by reviewing the legality of the President's official conduct, and may direct appropriate process to the President himself. It must follow that the federal courts have power to determine the legality of the President's unofficial conduct."<sup id="cite_ref-Clinton_v._Jones_p._682_446-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Clinton_v._Jones_p._682-446">[428]</a></sup> In 2000, the OLC issued a revision to its 1973 opinion on <a href="/info/en/?search=Presidential_immunity_in_the_United_States" title="Presidential immunity in the United States">presidential immunity</a> that concluded that the Court's rulings in <i>United States v. Nixon</i>, <i>Nixon v. Fitzgerald</i>, and <i>Clinton v. Jones</i> were consistent with its 1973 opinion, and while the OLC reiterated its position that "The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions", the OLC acknowledged the Court's conclusion in <i>Clinton v. Jones</i> that an incumbent President has no immunity from civil litigation seeking damages for unofficial conduct.<sup id="cite_ref-450" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-450">[432]</a></sup> In February 2022, District of Columbia U.S. District Court Judge <a href="/info/en/?search=Amit_Mehta" title="Amit Mehta">Amit Mehta</a> ruled that presidential immunity did not shield Trump from the lawsuits filed by Bennie Thompson, Eric Swalwell, and the U.S. Capitol Police officers.<sup id="cite_ref-451" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-451">[433]</a></sup>
</p><p>While Trump appealed Mehta's ruling to the U.S. District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals in March 2022,<sup id="cite_ref-452" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-452">[434]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-453" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-453">[435]</a></sup> the Circuit Court of Appeals panel (with Judges Gregory Katsas, <a href="/info/en/?search=Judith_W._Rogers" title="Judith W. Rogers">Judith W. Rogers</a>, and <a href="/info/en/?search=Sri_Srinivasan" title="Sri Srinivasan">Sri Srinivasan</a> presiding) upheld Mehta's ruling in December 2023 because Trump was acting "as an office-seeker not office-holder" due to his speech on January 6 being a campaign event, and as such, did not fall within the "outer perimeter" standard established in <i>Nixon v. Fitzgerald</i>.<sup id="cite_ref-454" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-454">[436]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-455" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-455">[437]</a></sup> On the same day the Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld the ruling that Trump was not immune from the civil lawsuits, District of Columbia U.S. District Court Judge <a href="/info/en/?search=Tanya_Chutkan" title="Tanya Chutkan">Tanya Chutkan</a> rejected a motion to dismiss the federal election obstruction indictment against Trump under presidential immunity which Trump appealed.<sup id="cite_ref-456" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-456">[438]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-457" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-457">[439]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-458" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-458">[440]</a></sup> In February 2024, the Circuit Court of Appeals panel (with Judges Florence Pan, <a href="/info/en/?search=J._Michelle_Childs" title="J. Michelle Childs">J. Michelle Childs</a>, and <a href="/info/en/?search=Karen_L._Henderson" title="Karen L. Henderson">Karen L. Henderson</a> presiding) unanimously affirmed the District Court ruling, concluding that Trump's alleged actions "lacked any lawful discretionary authority… and he is answerable in court for his conduct" because "former President Trump has become citizen Trump... [and] any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution."<sup id="cite_ref-459" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-459">[441]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-460" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-460">[442]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-461" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-461">[443]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Ballot_access_and_Electoral_College_vote_count">Ballot access and Electoral College vote count</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=15" title="Edit section: Ballot access and Electoral College vote count"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3>
<link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1033289096"><div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">See also: <a href="/info/en/?search=Incitatus" title="Incitatus">Incitatus</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=Non-human_electoral_candidates" title="Non-human electoral candidates">Non-human electoral candidates</a>, and <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_frivolous_political_parties" title="List of frivolous political parties">List of frivolous political parties</a></div>
<p>As the "practical construction" of the Presidential Electors Clause had "conceded <a href="/info/en/?search=Plenary_power" title="Plenary power">plenary power</a> to the state legislatures in [choosing the method or mode of] appointment of electors",<sup id="cite_ref-462" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-462">[444]</a></sup> the Supreme Court upheld a <a href="/info/en/?search=Michigan" title="Michigan">Michigan</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Election_law" title="Election law">election law</a> appointing presidential electors in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=McPherson_v._Blacker" title="McPherson v. Blacker">McPherson v. Blacker</a></i> (1892) because "where there is ambiguity or doubt" as to the meaning of constitutional text the "contemporaneous and subsequent practical construction is entitled to the greatest weight."<sup id="cite_ref-463" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-463">[445]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENealeNolan201926–29_464-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENealeNolan201926–29-464">[446]</a></sup> The Presidential Electors Clause states that "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress",<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003549_161-4" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003549-161">[159]</a></sup> and the clause delegates the authority to create election laws regulating <a href="/info/en/?search=Election_administration" title="Election administration">election administration</a> for presidential elections to state governments rather than the federal government.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGamboa20017–9_465-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGamboa20017–9-465">[447]</a></sup> In <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Chiafalo_v._Washington" title="Chiafalo v. Washington">Chiafalo v. Washington</a></i> (2020), the Court clarified in a unanimous decision that while the power delegated to state governments under the Presidential Electors Clause is not absolute,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENealeNolan201930_466-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENealeNolan201930-466">[448]</a></sup> the clause "gives the States far-reaching authority over presidential electors, absent some other constitutional constraint" and references the Presidential Qualifications Clause as an example.<sup id="cite_ref-467" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-467">[449]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEShelly20202–3_468-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEShelly20202–3-468">[450]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003550–551_309-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003550–551-309">[301]</a></sup>
</p><p>In <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Moore_v._Harper" title="Moore v. Harper">Moore v. Harper</a></i> (2023), the Court clarified further that the Presidential Electors Clause and the <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_1:_Time,_place,_and_manner_of_holding_elections" title="Article One of the United States Constitution">Congressional Elections Clause of Article I, Section IV</a> "[do] not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections" within their respective states in rejection of <a href="/info/en/?search=Independent_state_legislature_theory" title="Independent state legislature theory">independent state legislature theory</a>, ruling that election laws passed by state legislatures pursuant to the clauses are not only restrained by the federal constitution and federal law but also remain subject to judicial review by state courts, <a href="/info/en/?search=Presentment" title="Presentment">presentment</a> to <a href="/info/en/?search=Governor_(United_States)" title="Governor (United States)">state governors</a>, and the constraints of <a href="/info/en/?search=State_constitutions_in_the_United_States" title="State constitutions in the United States">state constitutions</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-469" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-469">[451]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-470" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-470">[452]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-471" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-471">[453]</a></sup> In upholding a California election law that denied <a href="/info/en/?search=Ballot_access" title="Ballot access">ballot access</a> to <a href="/info/en/?search=Independent_politician" title="Independent politician">independent candidates</a> who had a registered affiliation with a <a href="/info/en/?search=Political_parties_in_the_United_States" title="Political parties in the United States">political party</a> within one year of a <a href="/info/en/?search=Primary_election" title="Primary election">primary election</a>, the Supreme Court noted in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Storer_v._Brown" title="Storer v. Brown">Storer v. Brown</a></i> (1974) that "the States have evolved comprehensive, and in many respects complex, election codes regulating in most substantial ways, with respect to both federal and state elections, the time, place, and manner of holding primary and general elections... and the selection and qualification of candidates",<sup id="cite_ref-472" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-472">[454]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGamboa20013_473-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGamboa20013-473">[455]</a></sup> and reiterating its holding in <i>Jenness v. Fortson</i> (1971),<sup id="cite_ref-474" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-474">[456]</a></sup> the Court also noted that each "State has an interest, if not a duty, to protect the integrity of its political processes from frivolous or fraudulent candidacies."<sup id="cite_ref-475" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-475">[457]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024b3_476-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024b3-476">[458]</a></sup>
</p><p>In upholding a <a href="/info/en/?search=Washington_(state)" title="Washington (state)">Washington</a> general election ballot access law that required <a href="/info/en/?search=Third_party_(U.S._politics)" title="Third party (U.S. politics)">third-party candidates</a> receive 1% of the vote in the state's <a href="/info/en/?search=Blanket_primary" title="Blanket primary">blanket primary</a> in <i>Munro v. Socialist Workers Party</i> (1986), the Court reiterated that such laws are constitutional to "prevent voter confusion, ballot overcrowding, or the presence of frivolous candidacies".<sup id="cite_ref-477" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-477">[459]</a></sup> However, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_representatives_from_Maryland" title="List of United States representatives from Maryland">Maryland Representative</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Jamie_Raskin" title="Jamie Raskin">Jamie Raskin</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=National_Voting_Rights_Institute" title="National Voting Rights Institute">National Voting Rights Institute</a> founder <a href="/info/en/?search=John_Bonifaz" title="John Bonifaz">John Bonifaz</a> have noted that while the Supreme Court recognized a <a href="/info/en/?search=Rational_basis_review" title="Rational basis review">legitimate government interest</a> in blocking "frivolous candidacies" from the ballot in <i>Bullock v. Carter</i> (1972), the Court did not establish any qualifying criteria for "frivolous candidacies" and only held that using wealth and fundraising ability as criteria would "exclude legitimate as well as frivolous candidates".<sup id="cite_ref-478" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-478">[460]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-479" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-479">[461]</a></sup> The Supreme Court reaffirmed in <i>Lubin v. Panish</i> (1974) that ability to pay a filing fee as a condition for ballot access was unconstitutional,<sup id="cite_ref-480" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-480">[462]</a></sup> while the Supreme Court struck down a pair of <a href="/info/en/?search=Ohio" title="Ohio">Ohio</a> ballot access laws in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Williams_v._Rhodes" title="Williams v. Rhodes">Williams v. Rhodes</a></i> (1968) and <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Anderson_v._Celebrezze" title="Anderson v. Celebrezze">Anderson v. Celebrezze</a></i> (1983) for being discriminatory towards third party and independent candidates in violation of the right to <a href="/info/en/?search=Freedom_of_association" title="Freedom of association">freedom of association</a> under the 1st Amendment and the <a href="/info/en/?search=Equal_Protection_Clause" title="Equal Protection Clause">Equal Protection Clause</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENealeNolan201930_466-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENealeNolan201930-466">[448]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024b3_476-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024b3-476">[458]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-481" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-481">[463]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-482" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-482">[464]</a></sup>
</p><p>In most states, ballot access for candidates is acquired by signature <a href="/info/en/?search=Petition" title="Petition">petitions</a> that indicate a minimum level of support,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEAmado202227–32_483-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEAmado202227–32-483">[465]</a></sup> while political parties typically acquire ballot access for their nominees by a minimum vote share in a previous election, a minimum percentage of <a href="/info/en/?search=Voter_registration_in_the_United_States" title="Voter registration in the United States">voter registrations</a> in the state that are party-affiliated, or signature petitions.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEAmado202254–61_484-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEAmado202254–61-484">[466]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-485" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-485">[467]</a></sup> While the Court held in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Noerr%E2%80%93Pennington_doctrine" title="Noerr–Pennington doctrine">Eastern Railroad Conference v. Noerr Motors</a></i> (1961) and <i><a href="/info/en/?search=California_Motor_Transport_Co._v._Trucking_Unlimited" title="California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited">California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited</a></i> (1972) that the <a href="/info/en/?search=Right_to_petition_in_the_United_States" title="Right to petition in the United States">right to petition</a> under the 1st Amendment is not confined to "a redress of grievances" and extends to the "approach of citizens or groups of them to administrative agencies... courts... [and] all departments of the Government",<sup id="cite_ref-486" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-486">[468]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-487" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-487">[469]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-488" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-488">[470]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003558_158-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003558-158">[156]</a></sup> the Court also held in <i>Neitzke v. Williams</i> (1989) that a legal claim is "frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact."<sup id="cite_ref-489" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-489">[471]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-490" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-490">[472]</a></sup> In addition to ballot access laws, most states have election laws mandating <a href="/info/en/?search=Vote_counting" title="Vote counting">vote tabulation</a> registration requirements for <a href="/info/en/?search=Write-in_candidate" title="Write-in candidate">write-in candidates</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-491" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-491">[473]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElection_Assistance_Commission20235–7_492-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElection_Assistance_Commission20235–7-492">[474]</a></sup> Since at least the <a href="/info/en/?search=New_York_City_mayoral_elections" title="New York City mayoral elections">1932 New York City mayoral election</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=Mickey_Mouse" title="Mickey Mouse">Mickey Mouse</a> has received write-in votes in many elections as a <a href="/info/en/?search=Protest_vote" title="Protest vote">protest vote</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-493" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-493">[475]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElection_Assistance_Commission20231_494-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElection_Assistance_Commission20231-494">[476]</a></sup>
</p><p>In reaffirming its holding in <i>Powell v. McCormack</i>, the Court clarified in <i><a href="/info/en/?search=U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton" title="U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton">U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton</a></i> (1995) that state election laws regulating ballot access and election administration do not amount to additional qualifications for elected office because such laws "‍[regulate] election <i>procedures</i> and [do] not ... [render] a class of potential candidates ineligible",<sup id="cite_ref-495" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-495">[477]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-CRS_8-12-2002_403-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-CRS_8-12-2002-403">[386]</a></sup> but referencing the 22nd Amendment, the Court concluded that <a href="/info/en/?search=Term_limits_in_the_United_States" title="Term limits in the United States">term limits</a> do amount to a qualification because "[t]erm limits... unquestionably restrict the ability of voters to vote for whom they wish."<sup id="cite_ref-496" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-496">[478]</a></sup> The Court also stated that "the Framers understood the [Congressional] Elections Clause as a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power … to evade important constitutional restraints."<sup id="cite_ref-497" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-497">[479]</a></sup> Associate Justice <a href="/info/en/?search=Clarence_Thomas" title="Clarence Thomas">Clarence Thomas</a> argued in the <a href="/info/en/?search=Dissenting_opinion" title="Dissenting opinion">dissenting opinion</a> that state governments had the <a href="/info/en/?search=Reserved_powers" title="Reserved powers">reserved power</a> to create term limits for members of Congress from their respective states, but qualified that state election laws may be invalidated if "something in the federal constitution ... deprives the [States of] the power to enact such [a] measur[e]",<sup id="cite_ref-498" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-498">[480]</a></sup> and that states have "no reserved power to establish qualifications for the office of President... [b]ecause ... no State may legislate for another State".<sup id="cite_ref-499" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-499">[481]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-500" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-500">[482]</a></sup>
</p><p>While Thomas reiterated the reasoning of the dissenting opinion in his <a href="/info/en/?search=Concurring_opinion" title="Concurring opinion">concurring opinion</a> in <i>Chiafalo v. Washington</i>,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEShelly20202–3_468-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEShelly20202–3-468">[450]</a></sup> Thomas stated in the second part of his concurring opinion that the "powers related to [presidential] electors reside with States to the extent that the Constitution does not remove or restrict that power", and citing <i>Williams v. Rhodes</i>, that states cannot exercise their powers over presidential electors "in such a way as to violate express constitutional commands."<sup id="cite_ref-501" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-501">[483]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-502" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-502">[484]</a></sup> In addition to joining with the majority in <i>Chiafalo v. Washington</i>, Associate Justice <a href="/info/en/?search=Neil_Gorsuch" title="Neil Gorsuch">Neil Gorsuch</a> joined Thomas in the second part of the concurring opinion.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEShelly20202–3_468-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEShelly20202–3-468">[450]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-503" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-503">[485]</a></sup> Lynch cites the Court's opinion in <i>U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton</i> as suggesting that state governments are mandated to enforce the constitutional eligibility requirements for federal office, and while acknowledging that ballot access laws vary by state,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021184–186_504-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021184–186-504">[486]</a></sup> Lynch notes that many states permit formal challenges to candidates for the presidency and vice presidency on the basis of constitutional eligibility and that states can prohibit presidential electors from voting for constitutionally ineligible candidates.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021189–190_505-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021189–190-505">[487]</a></sup> In summarizing the debate among legal scholars over whether the 22nd Amendment places a restriction on holding the Presidency and Vice Presidency due to the eligibility requirement for the Vice Presidency under the 12th Amendment,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003561_125-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003561-125">[123]</a></sup> the CRS has noted that the text of the 22nd Amendment explicitly requires at a minimum that "No person shall be <i>elected</i> to the office of the President more than twice".<sup id="cite_ref-506" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-506">[488]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003565_507-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003565-507">[489]</a></sup>
</p><p>The CRS has also noted that the concurring opinion in the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the Madison Cawthorn Section 3 lawsuit argued that no court has ever held that state governments are precluded from determining the constitutional eligibility of candidates for Congress under the Electoral Judgement Clause and may do so under the Congressional Elections Clause.<sup id="cite_ref-CRS_6-1-2022_p._3_241-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-CRS_6-1-2022_p._3-241">[239]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544_72-8" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544-72">[72]</a></sup> While Lynch suggests that Section 3 challenges to prevent the administration of an oath of office to candidates-elect for state office could occur by a writ of <a href="/info/en/?search=Mandamus" title="Mandamus">mandamus</a> and that states retain the authority to judge legal contests for presidential elections,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021186–187_508-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021186–187-508">[490]</a></sup> Lynch argues that post-election Section 3 challenges would more likely be used to challenge the eligibility of presidential electors rather than a President-elect or Vice President-elect and that a post-election but pre-inauguration Section 3 challenge to candidates-elect for the latter positions would more likely occur at the Electoral College vote count.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021190–191_509-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021190–191-509">[491]</a></sup> Conversely, noting that the 1860 <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Republican_Party_presidential_tickets" title="List of United States Republican Party presidential tickets">Republican Party presidential ticket</a> of Abraham Lincoln and <a href="/info/en/?search=Hannibal_Hamlin" title="Hannibal Hamlin">Hannibal Hamlin</a> was not on the ballot in multiple states that appointed their presidential electors on the basis of a poll,<sup id="cite_ref-512" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-512">[s]</a></sup> <a href="/info/en/?search=Yale_Law_School" title="Yale Law School">Yale Law School</a> professor <a href="/info/en/?search=Akhil_Reed_Amar" title="Akhil Reed Amar">Akhil Amar</a> has argued that there is no constitutional requirement that each state apply Section 3 following the same ballot access procedures and that states may also leave Section 3 to be enforced instead by Congress at the Electoral College vote count.<sup id="cite_ref-513" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-513">[494]</a></sup>
</p><p>Rule 81 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolished federal writs of mandamus, but provides that "Relief previously available through them may be obtained by appropriate action or motion under these rules."<sup id="cite_ref-Fed._R._Civ._P._R_81_437-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Fed._R._Civ._P._R_81-437">[419]</a></sup> Under Section 109 of the ECRA, members of Congress remain permitted to object to the counting of the electoral votes from any state or the District of Columbia at the Electoral College vote count (which remains scheduled for the January 6 after the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Electoral_College#Meetings" title="United States Electoral College">Electoral College meetings</a>) if the electors were not lawfully certified under a <a href="/info/en/?search=Certificate_of_ascertainment" title="Certificate of ascertainment">certificate of ascertainment</a> or if one or more of the electoral votes have not been regularly given, and concurrent majorities in both houses of Congress remain necessary for objections to be sustained.<sup id="cite_ref-NPR_12-23-2022_208-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-NPR_12-23-2022-208">[206]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-514" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-514">[495]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERybickiWhitaker20206–8_515-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERybickiWhitaker20206–8-515">[496]</a></sup> At the Electoral College vote count following the <a href="/info/en/?search=1872_United_States_presidential_election" title="1872 United States presidential election">1872 presidential election</a>, objections to counting the 14 electoral votes from <a href="/info/en/?search=1872_United_States_presidential_election_in_Arkansas" title="1872 United States presidential election in Arkansas">Arkansas</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=1872_United_States_presidential_election_in_Louisiana" title="1872 United States presidential election in Louisiana">Louisiana</a> for the Republican Party ticket were sustained due to voting irregularities and allegations of <a href="/info/en/?search=Electoral_fraud" title="Electoral fraud">electoral fraud</a>,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERybickiWhitaker20204–5_516-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERybickiWhitaker20204–5-516">[497]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTESenate_Journal_42(3)340–344_517-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTESenate_Journal_42(3)340–344-517">[498]</a></sup> while objections to counting the 3 electoral votes from <a href="/info/en/?search=1872_United_States_presidential_election_in_Georgia" title="1872 United States presidential election in Georgia">Georgia</a> that had been cast for <a href="/info/en/?search=Liberal_Republican_Party_(United_States)" title="Liberal Republican Party (United States)">Liberal Republican Party</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Democratic_Party_presidential_tickets" title="List of United States Democratic Party presidential tickets">Democratic Party presidential nominee</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Horace_Greeley" title="Horace Greeley">Horace Greeley</a> (who had died after <a href="/info/en/?search=Election_Day_(United_States)" title="Election Day (United States)">Election Day</a> but prior to the Electoral College meetings) were sustained because Greeley's death rendered him constitutionally ineligible for the Presidency as he was "[no longer] a person within the meaning of the Constitution" and so his electoral votes "[could not] lawfully be counted".<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020c4_518-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020c4-518">[499]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTESenate_Journal_42(3)334–337_519-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTESenate_Journal_42(3)334–337-519">[500]</a></sup>
</p><p>At the Electoral College meetings following the <a href="/info/en/?search=1912_United_States_presidential_election" title="1912 United States presidential election">1912 presidential election</a>, the 8 electoral votes from <a href="/info/en/?search=1912_United_States_presidential_election_in_Utah" title="1912 United States presidential election in Utah">Utah</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=1912_United_States_presidential_election_in_Vermont" title="1912 United States presidential election in Vermont">Vermont</a> for the Republican Party nominee for vice president were cast for <a href="/info/en/?search=Nicholas_Murray_Butler" title="Nicholas Murray Butler">Nicholas Murray Butler</a> instead of <a href="/info/en/?search=James_S._Sherman" title="James S. Sherman">James S. Sherman</a>, as the latter, who had been nominated at the <a href="/info/en/?search=1912_Republican_National_Convention" title="1912 Republican National Convention">Republican National Convention</a>, died less than a week before Election Day.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020c3_520-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020c3-520">[501]</a></sup> While holding that state governments may restrict <a href="/info/en/?search=Faithless_elector" title="Faithless elector">presidential electors from voting faithlessly</a> upon pain of penalty, removal, and replacement, the Supreme Court also noted in <i>Chiafalo v. Washington</i> that while the question had not been presented in the case, "nothing in this opinion should be taken to permit the States to bind electors to a deceased candidate" in reference to the fact that the 63 presidential electors pledged to Horace Greeley in 1872 who voted faithlessly accounted for one-third of all of the faithless elector votes in the history of U.S. presidential elections.<sup id="cite_ref-521" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-521">[502]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEShelly20203_522-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEShelly20203-522">[503]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020c4_518-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020c4-518">[499]</a></sup> In <i>Fitzgerald v. Green</i> (1890) and <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Bush_v._Gore" title="Bush v. Gore">Bush v. Gore</a></i> (2000), the Supreme Court held that presidential electors are state government officials,<sup id="cite_ref-523" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-523">[504]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-524" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-524">[505]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-525" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-525">[506]</a></sup> and the Oath or Affirmation Clause also requires that "all executive and judicial Officers... of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution".<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003555–556_75-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003555–556-75">[75]</a></sup> Under the 12th Amendment, <a href="/info/en/?search=Contingent_election" title="Contingent election">contingent elections</a> for president and Vice President are held by the House of Representatives and the Senate respectively if no candidate receives "a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed".<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003560–561_526-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003560–561-526">[507]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020bi_527-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020bi-527">[508]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERybickiWhitaker20204–5_516-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERybickiWhitaker20204–5-516">[497]</a></sup>
</p><p>Section 1 of the <a href="/info/en/?search=Twentieth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution">20th Amendment</a> changed the expiration date for congressional terms of office to January 3 and presidential and vice presidential terms of office to January 20, and Section 2 of the 20th Amendment changed the commencement date of <a href="/info/en/?search=Legislative_session" title="Legislative session">congressional sessions</a> to January 3 from the first Monday of December under the <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_2:_Sessions_of_Congress" title="Article One of the United States Constitution">Congressional Sessions Clause of Article I, Section IV</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020b9_528-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020b9-528">[509]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544–545,_564_529-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544–545,_564-529">[510]</a></sup> Consequently, contingent elections are now conducted by incoming congressional sessions rather than by <a href="/info/en/?search=Lame-duck_session" title="Lame-duck session">lame-duck sessions</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020b9–10_530-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020b9–10-530">[511]</a></sup> Section 3 of the 20th Amendment provides that if a <a href="/info/en/?search=President-elect_of_the_United_States" title="President-elect of the United States">President-elect</a> is not chosen or fails to qualify before <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_presidential_inauguration" title="United States presidential inauguration">Inauguration Day</a> that the <a href="/info/en/?search=Vice_President-elect_of_the_United_States" title="Vice President-elect of the United States">Vice President-elect</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Acting_President_of_the_United_States" title="Acting President of the United States">acts as President</a> until a President is chosen; in the event that a contingent election conducted by the House fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day or if the Electoral College attempts to elect a President constitutionally ineligible to serve, and if a Vice President has also not been elected or the Vice President-elect has failed to qualify by Inauguration Day as well, Congress is delegated the power to declare who will act as President or create a selection process by which an Acting President is chosen until a President or Vice President has qualified.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020a4_109-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020a4-109">[107]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020b10_531-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020b10-531">[512]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003564–565_532-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003564–565-532">[513]</a></sup> Under Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, the Vice President-elect only becomes the President if the President-elect dies before Inauguration Day.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEContinuity_of_Government_Commission200931_533-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEContinuity_of_Government_Commission200931-533">[514]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020a4_109-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020a4-109">[107]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020c6–7_534-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020c6–7-534">[515]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003564–565_532-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003564–565-532">[513]</a></sup>
</p><p>The 80th United States Congress included "failure to qualify" as a condition for presidential succession under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEContinuity_of_Government_Commission200931_533-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEContinuity_of_Government_Commission200931-533">[514]</a></sup> Under Sections 102 and 106 of the ECRA, states may only appoint presidential electors under election laws enacted prior to Election Day and the electors are required to meet on the first Tuesday following the second Wednesday of December following their appointment.<sup id="cite_ref-535" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-535">[516]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-536" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-536">[517]</a></sup> Under the <a href="/info/en/?search=Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_4:_Election_day" title="Article Two of the United States Constitution">Electoral College Meetings Clause of Article II, Section I</a>, "Congress may determine the Time of [choosing presidential] Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes",<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003550_537-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003550-537">[518]</a></sup> while the Necessary and Proper Clause states that "Congress shall have Power... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution ... all ... Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States".<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003548_204-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003548-204">[202]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGamboa20017–9_465-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGamboa20017–9-465">[447]</a></sup> In <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Burroughs_v._United_States" title="Burroughs v. United States">Burroughs v. United States</a></i> (1934), the Supreme Court upheld the <a href="/info/en/?search=Federal_Corrupt_Practices_Act" title="Federal Corrupt Practices Act">Federal Corrupt Practices Act</a> because that law "[n]either in purpose nor in effect ... interfere[d] with the power of a state to appoint electors or the manner in which their appointment shall be made",<sup id="cite_ref-538" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-538">[519]</a></sup> and since presidential electors "exercise federal functions under... the Constitution... Congress [possesses the power] to pass appropriate legislation to safeguard [presidential elections] ... to preserve the departments and institutions of the general government from impairment or destruction, whether threatened by force or by corruption."<sup id="cite_ref-539" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-539">[520]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGamboa20017–9_465-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGamboa20017–9-465">[447]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-540" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-540">[t]</a></sup>
</p>
<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Litigation">Litigation</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=16" title="Edit section: Litigation"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2>
<p>A court may be required to make a final determination that Trump was disqualified under Section 3, according to some legal scholars.<sup id="cite_ref-541" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-541">[521]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-542" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-542">[522]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-543" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-543">[523]</a></sup> The United States Supreme Court has never ruled on the insurrection clause in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.<sup id="cite_ref-Cohen_544-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Cohen-544">[524]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-BBC231118_545-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-BBC231118-545">[525]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-546" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-546">[526]</a></sup>
</p><p>In December 2023, pending challenges to Trump's eligibility existed in state courts in Colorado, Michigan, Oregon, and Wisconsin; and in federal courts in Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, New York, New Mexico, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.<sup id="cite_ref-547" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-547">[527]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-548" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-548">[528]</a></sup> The non-profit group <a href="/info/en/?search=Citizens_for_Responsibility_and_Ethics_in_Washington" title="Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington">Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington</a> (CREW) and other advocacy groups and individuals are planning state-by-state efforts to keep Trump off state ballots.<sup id="cite_ref-549" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-549">[529]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-550" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-550">[530]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Supreme_Court">Supreme Court</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=17" title="Edit section: Supreme Court"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3>
<p>In January 2024, the <a href="/info/en/?search=Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" title="Supreme Court of the United States">Supreme Court of the United States</a> announced that it would hear <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_v._Anderson" title="Trump v. Anderson">Trump v. Anderson</a></i> to determine Trump's electoral eligibility, following Trump's appeal against the <a href="/info/en/?search=Colorado_district_courts" title="Colorado district courts">Colorado District Court's</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_v._Anderson" title="Trump v. Anderson">decision</a> to disqualify him from running in that state. The ruling will apply across all states.<sup id="cite_ref-:2_551-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-:2-551">[531]</a></sup> On January 26, lawyers for CREW submitted a court filing describing the attack on the Capitol and Trump's actions beforehand.<sup id="cite_ref-552" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-552">[532]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-553" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-553">[533]</a></sup>
</p><p>On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court heard arguments. Trump did not attend.<sup id="cite_ref-reutersfeb8_7-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-reutersfeb8-7">[7]</a></sup> On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states had no authority to remove Trump from their ballots, reversing the Colorado Supreme Court.<sup id="cite_ref-politicoMarch4_3-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-politicoMarch4-3">[3]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Lower_federal_courts">Lower federal courts</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=18" title="Edit section: Lower federal courts"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3>
<p>On August 24, 2023, Lawrence Caplan, a tax attorney in <a href="/info/en/?search=Palm_Beach_County" class="mw-redirect" title="Palm Beach County">Palm Beach County</a>, Florida, filed a challenge in the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_District_Court_for_the_Southern_District_of_Florida" title="United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida">Southern Florida U.S. District Court</a> to disqualify Trump from the 2024 General Election, citing the 14th Amendment.<sup id="cite_ref-554" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-554">[534]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-555" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-555">[535]</a></sup> One week later on September 1, <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_District_Judge" class="mw-redirect" title="United States District Judge">United States District Judge</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Robin_L._Rosenberg" title="Robin L. Rosenberg">Robin L. Rosenberg</a> dismissed the case for lack of <a href="/info/en/?search=Standing_(law)" title="Standing (law)">standing</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-556" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-556">[536]</a></sup>
</p><p>By the end of October, <a href="/info/en/?search=John_Anthony_Castro" title="John Anthony Castro">John Anthony Castro</a>, a candidate for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, had sued Trump based on the 14th Amendment in at least 26 federal district courts across the country.<sup id="cite_ref-557" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-557">[537]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-558" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-558">[538]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-559" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-559">[539]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-560" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-560">[540]</a></sup> On October 2, 2023, the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Supreme_Court" class="mw-redirect" title="United States Supreme Court">United States Supreme Court</a> declined to hear Castro's appeal of a Florida federal court's dismissal of his case for lack of standing.<sup id="cite_ref-561" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-561">[541]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-562" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-562">[542]</a></sup> On October 30, Castro's lawsuit in the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_New_Hampshire" title="United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire">New Hampshire U.S. District Court</a> was also dismissed for lack of standing. The New Hampshire court opined that even if Castro had standing, his claims would seem to be barred as a <a href="/info/en/?search=Political_question" title="Political question">political question</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-563" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-563">[543]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-564" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-564">[544]</a></sup> In late November, the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_First_Circuit" title="United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit">U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals</a> affirmed the dismissal for lack of standing.<sup id="cite_ref-565" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-565">[545]</a></sup> Castro has also had federal lawsuits dismissed for lack of standing in Rhode Island,<sup id="cite_ref-566" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-566">[546]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-567" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-567">[547]</a></sup> Arizona<sup id="cite_ref-568" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-568">[548]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-569" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-569">[549]</a></sup> and West Virginia,<sup id="cite_ref-Dickerson_570-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Dickerson-570">[550]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-571" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-571">[551]</a></sup> and has voluntarily dismissed several others.<sup id="cite_ref-572" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-572">[552]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Dickerson_570-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Dickerson-570">[550]</a></sup> By early January 2024, Castro had filed a second lawsuit in New Hampshire,<sup id="cite_ref-573" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-573">[553]</a></sup> and appealed the district court rulings in Florida,<sup id="cite_ref-574" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-574">[554]</a></sup> Arizona<sup id="cite_ref-575" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-575">[555]</a></sup> and West Virginia,<sup id="cite_ref-576" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-576">[556]</a></sup> but had a case dismissed in Nevada.<sup id="cite_ref-577" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-577">[557]</a></sup> By the end of January, Castro had also had cases dismissed in New Mexico<sup id="cite_ref-578" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-578">[558]</a></sup> and Alaska,<sup id="cite_ref-579" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-579">[559]</a></sup> but had appealed the ruling in New Mexico.<sup id="cite_ref-580" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-580">[560]</a></sup>
</p><p>On October 20, 2023, the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_District_Court_for_the_Central_District_of_California" title="United States District Court for the Central District of California">Central California U.S. District Court</a> dismissed for lack of standing a lawsuit seeking to disqualify Trump via section 3 of the 14th Amendment.<sup id="cite_ref-581" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-581">[561]</a></sup> On November 29, 2023, the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_District_Court_for_the_Eastern_District_of_Washington" title="United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington">Eastern Washington U.S. District Court</a> dismissed a claim against Trump under section 3 of the 14th Amendment that a Spokane Valley resident had filed too early for subject matter jurisdiction to apply.<sup id="cite_ref-582" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-582">[562]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-583" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-583">[563]</a></sup> On December 29, 2023, the <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_District_Court_for_the_Eastern_District_of_Virginia" title="United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia">Eastern Virginia U.S. District Court</a> dismissed for lack of standing another lawsuit seeking to disqualify Trump via section 3 of the 14th Amendment.<sup id="cite_ref-584" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-584">[564]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Colorado">Colorado</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=19" title="Edit section: Colorado"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3>
<link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1033289096"><div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">Main article: <a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_v._Anderson" title="Trump v. Anderson"><i>Trump v. Anderson</i></a></div>
<link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1033289096"><div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">See also: <a href="/info/en/?search=2024_United_States_presidential_election_in_Colorado" title="2024 United States presidential election in Colorado">2024 United States presidential election in Colorado</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Colorado_Republican_presidential_primary" title="2024 Colorado Republican presidential primary">2024 Colorado Republican presidential primary</a></div>
<p>On November 17, the <a href="/info/en/?search=Colorado_District_Court" class="mw-redirect" title="Colorado District Court">Colorado District Court</a>, a state trial court, dismissed <a href="/info/en/?search=2024_United_States_presidential_election_in_Colorado#14th_Amendment_lawsuit" title="2024 United States presidential election in Colorado">a lawsuit</a> brought by a bipartisan group of Colorado voters that sought to bar Trump from the state's presidential primaries and general election.<sup id="cite_ref-585" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-585">[565]</a></sup> This court was the first to rule on the merits of whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applied to Trump.<sup id="cite_ref-586" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-586">[566]</a></sup> It ruled that the January 6 Capitol attack was an "insurrection" within the meaning of Section 3, and that Trump did "engage" in insurrection by inciting the attack (outside of the protections of the <a href="/info/en/?search=First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="First Amendment to the United States Constitution">First Amendment</a>), but that Section 3 did not apply to Trump because the President of the United States is not an <a href="/info/en/?search=Officer_of_the_United_States" title="Officer of the United States">Officer of the United States</a> and thus Trump had not "previously taken an oath ... as an officer of the United States," as required by Section 3.<sup id="cite_ref-BBC231118_545-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-BBC231118-545">[525]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-587" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-587">[567]</a></sup> The court ordered the <a href="/info/en/?search=Colorado_Secretary_of_State" class="mw-redirect" title="Colorado Secretary of State">Colorado Secretary of State</a> to place Trump's name on the state's presidential primary ballot.<sup id="cite_ref-588" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-588">[568]</a></sup>
</p><p>The plaintiffs appealed<sup id="cite_ref-589" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-589">[569]</a></sup> and on December 19, the <a href="/info/en/?search=Colorado_Supreme_Court" title="Colorado Supreme Court">Colorado Supreme Court</a> reversed the Colorado District Court decision that the President is not an Officer of the United States while upholding the District Court's holding that Trump had engaged in insurrection, and ordered that Trump be removed from the <a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Colorado_Republican_presidential_primary" title="2024 Colorado Republican presidential primary">2024 Colorado Republican presidential primary</a> ballot.<sup id="cite_ref-590" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-590">[570]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-591" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-591">[571]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-592" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-592">[572]</a></sup> Both the Colorado Republican Party and Trump appealed.<sup id="cite_ref-593" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-593">[573]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-594" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-594">[574]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-595" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-595">[575]</a></sup> The Supreme Court of the United States heard the appeal on February 8, 2024.<sup id="cite_ref-:2_551-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-:2-551">[531]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-:3_596-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-:3-596">[576]</a></sup>
</p><p>The Colorado Supreme Court distinguished between the laws of Colorado and <a href="#Michigan">of Michigan</a>, observing that there is a statutory and constitutional role for the Colorado courts to assess the qualifications of a primary election candidate, and to order the secretary of state to exclude unqualified persons, even though no analogous responsibilities were identified by a contemporaneous Michigan Court of Appeals ruling relating to Trump.<sup id="cite_ref-597" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-597">[577]</a></sup><sup class="reference nowrap"><span title="Location: decision, pp. 48–49">: decision, pp. 48–49 </span></sup>
</p><p>Asked whether Trump is an insurrectionist, <a href="/info/en/?search=President_Biden" class="mw-redirect" title="President Biden">President Biden</a> responded "... whether the 14th Amendment applies, I'll let the court make that decision. But he certainly supported an insurrection."<sup id="cite_ref-598" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-598">[578]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Illinois">Illinois</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=20" title="Edit section: Illinois"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3>
<link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1033289096"><div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">Not to be confused with <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_v._Anderson" title="Trump v. Anderson">Trump v. Anderson</a></i>, the US Supreme Court case addressing the same eligibility issue.</div>
<p>On January 4, 2024, a petition challenging Trump's eligibility under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for both the <a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Illinois_Republican_presidential_primary" title="2024 Illinois Republican presidential primary">primary</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=2024_United_States_presidential_election_in_Illinois" title="2024 United States presidential election in Illinois">general election</a> ballots was filed with the <a href="/info/en/?search=Illinois_State_Board_of_Elections" title="Illinois State Board of Elections">Illinois State Board of Elections</a> by voters Steven Daniel Anderson, Charles J. Holley, Jack L Hickman, Ralph E Cintron, and Darryl P. Baker.<sup id="cite_ref-599" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-599">[579]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-600" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-600">[580]</a></sup> On January 26, a hearing was held.<sup id="cite_ref-601" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-601">[581]</a></sup> The hearing officer recommended that the case be decided in a court of law, rather than by the Board of Elections, but that if the Board were to decide the case it should find that Trump had engaged in insurrection and should be excluded from the Illinois primary ballot.<sup id="cite_ref-602" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-602">[582]</a></sup> The board unanimously ruled on January 30 to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, leaving Trump on the ballot.<sup id="cite_ref-603" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-603">[583]</a></sup> That same day, the plaintiffs appealed to the <a href="/info/en/?search=Circuit_Court_of_Cook_County" title="Circuit Court of Cook County">Illinois circuit court in Cook County</a>,<sup id="cite_ref-604" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-604">[584]</a></sup> under the case name <i>Anderson v. Trump</i>.
</p><p>The Circuit Court denied a motion from the Trump campaign (which requested a postponement until after the announcement of U.S. Supreme Court decision on the similar case in Colorado), and instead set hearing on the objector's claims against Trump for February 16, 2024.<sup id="cite_ref-605" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-605">[585]</a></sup> After the hearing, in a lengthy written order on February 28, the Circuit Court ordered Trump removed from Illinois primary ballots, with a stay of the order for an appeal to be taken, or should the U.S. Supreme Court issue an inconsistent opinion. The Circuit Court agreed that as a matter of fact and law, given the submitted record, Trump is disqualified under the 14th Amendment insurrection clause, and therefore the Illinois affidavit required from Trump concerning his legal qualification for office was not and cannot be truthfully given.<sup id="cite_ref-606" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-606">[586]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-607" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-607">[587]</a></sup> Trump has appealed.<sup id="cite_ref-608" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-608">[588]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Michigan">Michigan</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=21" title="Edit section: Michigan"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3>
<p>In the Michigan case, <i>Trump v. Benson</i>,<sup id="cite_ref-609" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-609">[u]</a></sup> on November 14, Judge James Robert Redford of the <a href="/info/en/?search=Michigan_Court_of_Claims" title="Michigan Court of Claims">Michigan Court of Claims</a>, a specialized <a href="/info/en/?search=Trial_court" title="Trial court">trial court</a> for claims against the state, dismissed a lawsuit that sought to bar Trump from the <a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Michigan_Republican_presidential_nominating_contests" title="2024 Michigan Republican presidential nominating contests">Michigan Republican primary and caucuses</a>, ruling that neither the state courts nor the <a href="/info/en/?search=Michigan_Secretary_of_State" title="Michigan Secretary of State">Michigan Secretary of State</a> had the authority to determine whether Trump was disqualified by the 14th Amendment, because disqualification was a political question to be decided by Congress, and if Congress disqualifies Trump, the <a href="/info/en/?search=Twentieth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution">20th Amendment</a> provides for a remedy (the vice-president assuming the presidency).<sup id="cite_ref-Cohen_544-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Cohen-544">[524]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-610" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-610">[589]</a></sup> He ruled that Trump's eligibility to appear on the Republican primary ballot "presents a political question that is nonjusticiable at the present time", and found that the general election question "is not ripe for adjudication at this time".<sup id="cite_ref-611" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-611">[590]</a></sup>
</p><p>The plaintiffs appealed.<sup id="cite_ref-Riccardi-Michigan_612-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Riccardi-Michigan-612">[591]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Robertson_613-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Robertson-613">[592]</a></sup> On December 14, the <a href="/info/en/?search=Michigan_Court_of_Appeals" title="Michigan Court of Appeals">Michigan Court of Appeals</a> rejected their appeal, ruling that political parties could decide eligibility for the primary ballot and that the issue of eligibility for the general election ballot was not yet ripe.<sup id="cite_ref-614" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-614">[593]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-615" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-615">[594]</a></sup> The plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the <a href="/info/en/?search=Michigan_Supreme_Court" title="Michigan Supreme Court">Michigan Supreme Court</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-616" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-616">[595]</a></sup>
</p><p>On December 27, the Michigan Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, thus keeping him on the ballot.<sup id="cite_ref-617" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-617">[596]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Minnesota">Minnesota</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=22" title="Edit section: Minnesota"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3>
<p>On November 8, the <a href="/info/en/?search=Minnesota_Supreme_Court" title="Minnesota Supreme Court">Minnesota Supreme Court</a>, the state's highest court, dismissed a lawsuit brought by a bipartisan group of Minnesota voters that sought to bar Trump from the <a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Minnesota_Republican_presidential_primary" title="2024 Minnesota Republican presidential primary">Minnesota Republican primary</a>, ruling that no Minnesota state law prohibits political parties from listing ineligible candidates on their primary ballots. The court did not address whether the <a href="/info/en/?search=January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack" title="January 6 United States Capitol attack">January 6 United States Capitol attack</a> was an "insurrection," and whether Trump "engaged" in it, within the meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The court ruled that the challengers could file a new lawsuit seeking to bar Trump from the <a href="/info/en/?search=2024_United_States_presidential_election_in_Minnesota" title="2024 United States presidential election in Minnesota">Minnesota general election ballot</a> if he is nominated as the Republican candidate for the general election.<sup id="cite_ref-618" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-618">[597]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-619" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-619">[598]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Oregon">Oregon</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=23" title="Edit section: Oregon"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3>
<p>In early December 2023, an advocacy group filed a lawsuit with the <a href="/info/en/?search=Oregon_Supreme_Court" title="Oregon Supreme Court">Oregon Supreme Court</a> to remove Trump from the <a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Oregon_Republican_presidential_primary" title="2024 Oregon Republican presidential primary">Oregon Republican primary</a> ballot.<sup id="cite_ref-620" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-620">[599]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-621" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-621">[600]</a></sup> The group sued <a href="/info/en/?search=Oregon_Secretary_of_State" title="Oregon Secretary of State">Oregon Secretary of State</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=LaVonne_Griffin-Valade" title="LaVonne Griffin-Valade">LaVonne Griffin-Valade</a> after she said on November 30 that she did not have authority over who appears on the ballot for a primary election.<sup id="cite_ref-622" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-622">[601]</a></sup> On January 12, 2024, the Oregon Supreme Court declined to hear the case and did not rule on its merits, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's ongoing consideration of <i>Trump v. Anderson</i>.<sup id="cite_ref-623" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-623">[602]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Other_states">Other states</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=24" title="Edit section: Other states"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3>
<p>In August 2023, a lawsuit seeking to bar Trump from the <a href="/info/en/?search=2024_California_Republican_presidential_primary" title="2024 California Republican presidential primary">California Republican primary</a> ballot under the 14th amendment was filed in <a href="/info/en/?search=Alameda_County_Superior_Court" title="Alameda County Superior Court">Alameda County Superior Court</a>, and, in October 2023, another was filed in <a href="/info/en/?search=Los_Angeles_County_Superior_Court" title="Los Angeles County Superior Court">Los Angeles County Superior Court</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-624" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-624">[603]</a></sup>
</p><p>On November 1, 2023, a lawsuit aiming to bar Trump and <a href="/info/en/?search=Cynthia_Lummis" title="Cynthia Lummis">Cynthia Lummis</a> from the ballot was filed in the <a href="/info/en/?search=Wyoming_District_Courts" title="Wyoming District Courts">Wyoming District Court</a> in <a href="/info/en/?search=Albany_County,_Wyoming" title="Albany County, Wyoming">Albany County</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-625" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-625">[604]</a></sup> On January 4, 2024, it was dismissed.<sup id="cite_ref-626" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-626">[605]</a></sup> The plaintiff has appealed.<sup id="cite_ref-627" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-627">[606]</a></sup>
</p><p>On December 22, a lawsuit seeking to bar Trump from the <a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Louisiana_Republican_presidential_primary" title="2024 Louisiana Republican presidential primary">Louisiana Republican primary</a> ballot was filed in the 19th Judicial District Court of that state.<sup id="cite_ref-628" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-628">[607]</a></sup> On January 5, 2024, it was withdrawn.<sup id="cite_ref-629" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-629">[608]</a></sup>
</p><p>In late December 2023, Kirk Bangstad, a local <a href="/info/en/?search=Brewery" title="Brewery">brewery</a> owner, filed a complaint with the <a href="/info/en/?search=Wisconsin_Elections_Commission" title="Wisconsin Elections Commission">Wisconsin Elections Commission</a> to remove Trump from the <a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Wisconsin_Republican_presidential_primary" title="2024 Wisconsin Republican presidential primary">primary</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=2024_United_States_presidential_election_in_Wisconsin" title="2024 United States presidential election in Wisconsin">general election ballots in Wisconsin</a>, which dismissed the complaint immediately by recusing itself.<sup id="cite_ref-630" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-630">[609]</a></sup> On January 5, Bangstad filed a related lawsuit in the <a href="/info/en/?search=Wisconsin_Circuit_Court" class="mw-redirect" title="Wisconsin Circuit Court">Wisconsin Circuit Court</a> in <a href="/info/en/?search=Dane_County" class="mw-redirect" title="Dane County">Dane County</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-631" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-631">[610]</a></sup>
</p><p>By early January 2024, a lawsuit aiming to bar Trump from the ballot under the 14th amendment was filed in the <a href="/info/en/?search=Circuit_court_(Florida)" title="Circuit court (Florida)">Florida circuit court</a> in <a href="/info/en/?search=Broward_County,_Florida" title="Broward County, Florida">Broward County</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-632" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-632">[611]</a></sup>
</p><p>In early January 2024, a pair of activists who'd had a case denied in federal court for lack of standing there filed a similar lawsuit in the <a href="/info/en/?search=Virginia_circuit_court" class="mw-redirect" title="Virginia circuit court">Virginia circuit court</a> in <a href="/info/en/?search=Richmond_County,_Virginia" title="Richmond County, Virginia">Richmond County</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-633" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-633">[612]</a></sup>
</p><p>A lawsuit concerning Trump's inclusion on the <a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Washington_Republican_presidential_primary" title="2024 Washington Republican presidential primary">Washington state primary ballot</a> was to be heard in <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_Superior_Court_districts_in_Washington" title="List of Superior Court districts in Washington">Kitsap County Superior Court</a> on January 16, 2024,<sup id="cite_ref-634" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-634">[613]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-635" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-635">[614]</a></sup> but the judge decided that the case should be moved to <a href="/info/en/?search=Thurston_County,_Washington" title="Thurston County, Washington">Thurston County</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-636" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-636">[615]</a></sup> Thurston County judge Mary Sue Wilson ruled on January 18 that Trump will stay on the Washington primary ballot.<sup id="cite_ref-637" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-637">[616]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-638" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-638">[617]</a></sup>
</p>
<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="State_election_agencies">State election agencies</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=25" title="Edit section: State election agencies"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2>
<p>Some <a href="/info/en/?search=Secretary_of_state_(U.S._state_government)" title="Secretary of state (U.S. state government)">secretaries of state</a>, who oversee elections in states, have begun preparing for potential challenges relating to whether Trump might be excluded from November 2024 ballots.<sup id="cite_ref-639" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-639">[618]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-640" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-640">[619]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-641" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-641">[620]</a></sup> In September 2023, <a href="/info/en/?search=New_Hampshire_Secretary_of_State" title="New Hampshire Secretary of State">New Hampshire Secretary of State</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=David_Scanlan" title="David Scanlan">David Scanlan</a> stated he would not invoke the 14th Amendment to remove Trump from the <a href="/info/en/?search=2024_New_Hampshire_Republican_presidential_primary" title="2024 New Hampshire Republican presidential primary">New Hampshire Republican primary</a> ballot.<sup id="cite_ref-642" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-642">[621]</a></sup> In December 2023, <a href="/info/en/?search=Secretary_of_State_of_California" title="Secretary of State of California">California Secretary of State</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Shirley_Weber" title="Shirley Weber">Shirley Weber</a> also declined to remove Trump from the <a href="/info/en/?search=2024_California_Republican_presidential_primary" title="2024 California Republican presidential primary">California Republican primary</a> ballot.<sup id="cite_ref-643" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-643">[622]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Maine">Maine</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=26" title="Edit section: Maine"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3>
<link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1033289096"><div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">See also: <a href="/info/en/?search=2024_United_States_presidential_election_in_Maine" title="2024 United States presidential election in Maine">2024 United States presidential election in Maine</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Maine_Republican_presidential_primary" title="2024 Maine Republican presidential primary">2024 Maine Republican presidential primary</a></div>
<p>In early December 2023, five Maine voters submitted three challenges to Maine Secretary of State <a href="/info/en/?search=Shenna_Bellows" title="Shenna Bellows">Shenna Bellows</a> contesting Trump's eligibility to be included on the ballot for Maine's 2024 Republican presidential preference primary.<sup id="cite_ref-me_hearing_pr_644-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-me_hearing_pr-644">[623]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-645" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-645">[624]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-646" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-646">[625]</a></sup> Two of these challenges asserted Trump was ineligible pursuant to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution, while a third challenge focused on the <a href="/info/en/?search=Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution">22nd Amendment</a>'s ban on a "person . . . be[ing] elected to the office of the President more than twice" and claimed that Trump is ineligible to be elected president in 2024 because he claims to have already been elected to the presidency twice (in 2016 and 2020).<sup id="cite_ref-647" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-647">[626]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-648" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-648">[627]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-649" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-649">[628]</a></sup>
</p><p>On December 15, Bellows held a hearing on the challenges she was presented with.<sup id="cite_ref-me_hearing_pr_644-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-me_hearing_pr-644">[623]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-650" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-650">[629]</a></sup> On December 28, in a 34-page order, she ruled that Trump was ineligible to be listed on the Maine primary ballot pursuant to the 14th Amendment.<sup id="cite_ref-me_decision_pr_651-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-me_decision_pr-651">[630]</a></sup> Specifically, she found that the former president "used a false narrative of election fraud to inflame his supporters" and "engaged in insurrection or rebellion."<sup id="cite_ref-652" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-652">[631]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-653" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-653">[632]</a></sup> Bellows further concluded that the 22nd Amendment did not prevent Trump from running for president in 2024.<sup id="cite_ref-me_decision_pr_651-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-me_decision_pr-651">[630]</a></sup> Bellows stayed Trump's removal from the ballot pending the earlier of the resolution of any appeal Trump might make to the Maine Superior Court or the expiration of his deadline to make such an appeal.<sup id="cite_ref-me_decision_pr_651-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-me_decision_pr-651">[630]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-654" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-654">[633]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-655" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-655">[634]</a></sup>
</p><p>On January 2, 2024, Trump appealed Bellows' decision to the <a href="/info/en/?search=Maine_Superior_Court" title="Maine Superior Court">Maine Superior Court</a> in <a href="/info/en/?search=Kennebec_County,_Maine" title="Kennebec County, Maine">Kennebec County</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-656" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-656">[635]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-657" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-657">[636]</a></sup> On January 17, the Superior Court extended the stay of the effects of Bellows' decision by remanding the case back to her for reconsideration after the U.S. Supreme Court rules in <i>Trump v. Anderson</i>.<sup id="cite_ref-658" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-658">[637]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-659" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-659">[638]</a></sup> Bellows appealed to the <a href="/info/en/?search=Maine_Supreme_Judicial_Court" title="Maine Supreme Judicial Court">Maine Supreme Judicial Court</a> on January 19,<sup id="cite_ref-660" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-660">[639]</a></sup> though the appeal was dismissed on January 24.<sup id="cite_ref-661" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-661">[640]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Massachusetts">Massachusetts</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=27" title="Edit section: Massachusetts"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3>
<p>While <a href="/info/en/?search=Secretary_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Massachusetts" title="Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts">Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=William_F._Galvin" title="William F. Galvin">William F. Galvin</a> has stated that Trump will appear on the <a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Massachusetts_Republican_presidential_primary" title="2024 Massachusetts Republican presidential primary">Massachusetts Republican primary</a> ballot barring a court order,<sup id="cite_ref-662" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-662">[641]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-663" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-663">[642]</a></sup> a group of Massachusetts voters filed a petition with the Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission to remove Trump from the primary and <a href="/info/en/?search=2024_United_States_presidential_election_in_Massachusetts" title="2024 United States presidential election in Massachusetts">general election</a> ballots under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment on January 4, 2024.<sup id="cite_ref-664" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-664">[643]</a></sup> On January 18, an initial hearing was held.<sup id="cite_ref-665" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-665">[644]</a></sup> On January 22, the Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission dismissed the primary ballot challenge citing a lack of jurisdiction.<sup id="cite_ref-666" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-666">[645]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-667" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-667">[646]</a></sup> On January 23, the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the <a href="/info/en/?search=Massachusetts_Supreme_Judicial_Court" title="Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court">Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-668" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-668">[647]</a></sup> On January 29, the case was dismissed for lack of ripeness.<sup id="cite_ref-669" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-669">[648]</a></sup> The plaintiffs appealed.<sup id="cite_ref-670" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-670">[649]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Other_states_2">Other states</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=28" title="Edit section: Other states"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3>
<p>On December 20, 2023, a voter challenge filed with the <a href="/info/en/?search=North_Carolina_State_Board_of_Elections" title="North Carolina State Board of Elections">North Carolina State Board of Elections</a> against Trump's candidacy in the <a href="/info/en/?search=2024_North_Carolina_Republican_presidential_primary" title="2024 North Carolina Republican presidential primary">North Carolina Republican primary</a> citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was denied with the State Board citing a lack of jurisdiction to hear the complaint. On December 29, the plaintiff appealed to the <a href="/info/en/?search=North_Carolina_Superior_Court" title="North Carolina Superior Court">North Carolina Superior Court</a> in <a href="/info/en/?search=Wake_County,_North_Carolina" title="Wake County, North Carolina">Wake County</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-671" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-671">[650]</a></sup>
</p><p>On February 13, a challenge citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against Trump's candidacy in the <a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Indiana_Republican_presidential_primary" title="2024 Indiana Republican presidential primary">Indiana Republican primary</a> citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was filed with the Indiana Election Commission.<sup id="cite_ref-672" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-672">[651]</a></sup> On February 27, it was denied.<sup id="cite_ref-673" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-673">[652]</a></sup>
</p>
<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Public_opinion">Public opinion</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=29" title="Edit section: Public opinion"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2>
<link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1033289096"><div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">See also: <a href="/info/en/?search=Political_polarization_in_the_United_States#Voting_patterns" title="Political polarization in the United States">Political polarization in the United States § Voting patterns</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=Red_states_and_blue_states#Polarization" title="Red states and blue states">Red states and blue states § Polarization</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=Pluralistic_ignorance" title="Pluralistic ignorance">Pluralistic ignorance</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=False_consensus_effect" title="False consensus effect">False consensus effect</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=False-uniqueness_effect" title="False-uniqueness effect">False-uniqueness effect</a>, and <a href="/info/en/?search=Spiral_of_silence" title="Spiral of silence">Spiral of silence</a></div>
<table class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;">
<caption>Investigations, indictments, trials, and campaign announcement timeline
</caption>
<tbody><tr>
<th>Event</th>
<th>Date
</th></tr>
<tr>
<td>Election Day of 2020 presidential election</td>
<td>November 3, 2020
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td>January 6 Capitol attack during 2021 Electoral College vote count</td>
<td>January 6, 2021
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Justice_Department_investigation_into_attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_presidential_election" title="United States Justice Department investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election">Justice Department investigation of Capitol attack and 2020 election obstruction</a> opened</td>
<td>January 7, 2021
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td>House January 6 Committee formed</td>
<td>July 1, 2021
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a href="/info/en/?search=FBI_search_of_Mar-a-Lago" title="FBI search of Mar-a-Lago">FBI search of Mar-a-Lago</a></td>
<td>August 8, 2022
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a href="/info/en/?search=New_York_criminal_investigation_of_The_Trump_Organization" title="New York criminal investigation of The Trump Organization">Criminal trial</a> of <a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_Organization" class="mw-redirect" title="Trump Organization">Trump Organization</a> heard by the <a href="/info/en/?search=New_York_Supreme_Court" title="New York Supreme Court">New York Supreme Court</a> begins</td>
<td>August 18, 2022
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a href="/info/en/?search=Attorney_General_of_New_York" title="Attorney General of New York">New York Attorney General</a> announces <a href="/info/en/?search=New_York_civil_investigation_of_The_Trump_Organization" class="mw-redirect" title="New York civil investigation of The Trump Organization">civil fraud lawsuit</a> against Trump Organization</td>
<td>September 21, 2022
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign" title="Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign">Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign</a> officially announced</td>
<td>November 15, 2022
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td>Smith special counsel investigation opened</td>
<td>November 18, 2022
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td>Trump Organization convicted in New York criminal trial</td>
<td>December 6, 2022
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td>House January 6 Committee refers Trump to Justice Department for prosecution</td>
<td>December 19, 2022
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td>House January 6 Committee releases final report</td>
<td>December 22, 2022
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td>New York Supreme Court indicts Trump in <a href="/info/en/?search=Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York" title="Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York">falsified business records case</a></td>
<td>March 30, 2023
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td>Southern Florida U.S. District Court indicts Trump in <a href="/info/en/?search=Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_(classified_documents_case)" title="Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (classified documents case)">classified documents case</a></td>
<td>June 8, 2023
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td>District of Columbia U.S. District Court indicts Trump in election obstruction case</td>
<td>August 1, 2023
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a href="/info/en/?search=Fulton_County,_Georgia" title="Fulton County, Georgia">Fulton County</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Georgia_Superior_Courts" title="Georgia Superior Courts">Superior Court</a> indicts Trump in <a href="/info/en/?search=Georgia_election_racketeering_prosecution" title="Georgia election racketeering prosecution">Georgia election racketeering case</a></td>
<td>August 14, 2023
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td>New York civil fraud lawsuit trial begins</td>
<td>October 2, 2023
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>The following tables present a survey of the results from various polls. Due to the substance and exact wording of the poll questions and response options provided to survey respondents varying by poll, this summary should be considered as approximative. For the precise results (which often cover more alternatives than the summary does), see the separate polls.
</p>
<table class="wikitable">
<caption style="font-size:100%">January 6 investigations, charges, or conviction disqualify Trump from Presidency under 14th Amendment by states or Supreme Court
</caption>
<tbody><tr valign="bottom">
<th style="width:250px;">Poll source
</th>
<th style="width:180px;">Date(s) administered
</th>
<th class="small">Sample size
</th>
<th><small>MoE</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;">% agree
</th>
<th style="width:100px;">% disagree
</th>
<th style="width:100px;">% no opinion
</th></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20220927_yahoo_toplines_1.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-Yahoo!_News_9-30-2022_674-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Yahoo!_News_9-30-2022-674">[653]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-September2022_675-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-September2022-675">[v]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">September 23–27, 2022
</td>
<td align="center">1,566 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>50%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">31%
</td>
<td align="center">19%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20221017_yahoo_toplines.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-October2022_676-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-October2022-676">[w]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">October 13–17, 2022
</td>
<td align="center">1,629 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>49%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">34%
</td>
<td align="center">16%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230227_yahoo_toplines.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-February2023_677-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-February2023-677">[x]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">February 23–27, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,516 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>49%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">37%
</td>
<td align="center">14%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us03292023_ufuy73.pdf">Quinnipiac University</a><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac_3-29-2023_678-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac_3-29-2023-678">[654]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac-March2023_679-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac-March2023-679">[y]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">March 23–27, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,788 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.3%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>57%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">38%
</td>
<td align="center">5%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Trump%20Indictment%20Wave%205%20Federal%20Charges%20Topline%2008%2003%202023_0.pdf">Reuters/Ipsos</a><sup id="cite_ref-Reuters_8-3-2023_680-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Reuters_8-3-2023-680">[655]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Ipsos_8-3-2023_681-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Ipsos_8-3-2023-681">[656]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-August2023-TM3138Y23_682-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Reuters-Ipsos-August2023-TM3138Y23-682">[z]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 2–3, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,005 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.8%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>59%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">32%
</td>
<td align="center">8%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23936298/cnn-poll-on-gop-primary-voters.pdf">CNN/SSRS</a><sup id="cite_ref-CNN_9-5-2023_683-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-CNN_9-5-2023-683">[657]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-CNN-SSRS-September2023_684-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-CNN-SSRS-September2023-684">[aa]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 25–31, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,503 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.5%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>51%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">49%
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/0cc7a4b2-8e80-46f3-9c78-3ff36f7a08ee.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_4">Washington Post/ABC News</a><sup id="cite_ref-Washington_Post_9-29-2023_685-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Washington_Post_9-29-2023-685">[658]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-WashingtonPost-ABCNews-September2023_686-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-WashingtonPost-ABCNews-September2023-686">[ab]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">September 15–20, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,006 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.5%
</td>
<td align="center">44%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>51%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">5%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000018a-e137-d2cf-a3af-fbb729e80000">Morning Consult/Politico</a><sup id="cite_ref-Politico_9-29-2023_687-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Politico_9-29-2023-687">[659]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-MorningConsult-Politico-September2023_688-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-MorningConsult-Politico-September2023-688">[ac]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">September 23–25, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,967 RV
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.0%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>51%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">34%
</td>
<td align="center">15%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.newsnationnow.com/polls/full-survey-views-on-gop-candidates-foreign-conflicts-and-more/">NewsNation/Decision Desk HQ</a><sup id="cite_ref-NewsNation-DecisionDeskHQ-November2023_689-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-NewsNation-DecisionDeskHQ-November2023-689">[ad]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">November 26–27, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">3,200 RV
</td>
<td align="center">± 1.7%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>57%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">43%
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/cbsnews_20240107_PDF1.pdf">CBS News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-CBSNews-YouGov-January2024-Q33_690-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-CBSNews-YouGov-January2024-Q33-690">[ae]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 3–5, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">2,157 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.8%
</td>
<td align="center">46%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>54%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2024-01/ABC-News-Ipsos-Topline-Jan2024.pdf">ABC News/Ipsos</a><sup id="cite_ref-ABC_News_1-12-2024_691-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-ABC_News_1-12-2024-691">[660]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Ipsos_1-12-2024_692-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Ipsos_1-12-2024-692">[661]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-ABCNews-Ipsos-January2024_693-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-ABCNews-Ipsos-January2024-693">[af]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 4–8, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">2,228 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.5%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>56%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">39%
</td>
<td align="center">5%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_toplines_final.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024_694-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024-694">[662]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q27_695-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q27-695">[ag]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 25–29, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">1,594 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>46%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">39%
</td>
<td align="center">15%
</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table class="wikitable">
<caption style="font-size:100%">Trump should withdraw candidacy due to January 6 charges or not serve or be elected President if charged or convicted of a serious crime
</caption>
<tbody><tr valign="bottom">
<th style="width:270px;">Poll source
</th>
<th style="width:170px;">Date(s) administered
</th>
<th class="small">Sample size
</th>
<th><small>MoE</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;">% agree
</th>
<th style="width:100px;">% disagree
</th>
<th style="width:100px;">% no opinion
</th></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-03/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Large%20Sample%20Survey%20Issues%20Poll%20March%202023%20Topline%2003%2024%202023.pdf">Reuters/Ipsos</a><sup id="cite_ref-Ipsos_3-24-2023_696-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Ipsos_3-24-2023-696">[663]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-March2023_697-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Reuters-Ipsos-March2023-697">[ah]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">March 14–20, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">4,410 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 1.8%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>63%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">28%
</td>
<td align="center">9%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-04/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Trump%20Indictment%20Survey%20Topline%204.6.23_0.pdf">Reuters/Ipsos</a><sup id="cite_ref-Reuters_4-6-2023_698-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Reuters_4-6-2023-698">[664]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Ipsos_4-7-2023_699-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Ipsos_4-7-2023-699">[665]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-April2023_700-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Reuters-Ipsos-April2023-700">[ai]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">April 5–6, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,004 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.8%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>51%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">43%
</td>
<td align="center">6%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_Trump_202304211108-1.pdf">NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist</a><sup id="cite_ref-NPR_4-25-2023_701-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-NPR_4-25-2023-701">[666]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Marist_4-25-2023_702-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Marist_4-25-2023-702">[667]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-NPR-PBSNewsHour-Marist_703-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-NPR-PBSNewsHour-Marist-703">[aj]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">April 17–19, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,291 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.4%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>70%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">27%
</td>
<td align="center">2%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230530_yahoo_toplines.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q50_704-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q50-704">[ak]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">May 25–30, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,520 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>62%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">23%
</td>
<td align="center">15%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-06/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Trump%20Indictment%20Wave%204%20Federal%20Charges%20Topline%2006%2013%202023.pdf">Reuters/Ipsos</a><sup id="cite_ref-Ipsos_6-13-2023_705-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Ipsos_6-13-2023-705">[668]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-June_2023_706-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Reuters-Ipsos-June_2023-706">[al]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">June 9–12, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,005 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.8%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>50%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">38%
</td>
<td align="center">12%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230717_yahoo_toplines.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q29_707-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q29-707">[am]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">July 13–17, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,638 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>62%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">24%
</td>
<td align="center">14%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Trump%20Indictment%20Wave%205%20Federal%20Charges%20Topline%2008%2003%202023_0.pdf">Reuters/Ipsos</a><sup id="cite_ref-Reuters_8-3-2023_680-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Reuters_8-3-2023-680">[655]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Ipsos_8-3-2023_681-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Ipsos_8-3-2023-681">[656]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-ReutersIpsosAugust2023-TM3181Y23_708-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-ReutersIpsosAugust2023-TM3181Y23-708">[an]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 2–3, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,005 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.8%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>67%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">18%
</td>
<td align="center">15%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/Topline%20ABC_Ipsos%20Poll%20Final.pdf">ABC News/Ipsos</a><sup id="cite_ref-ABC_News_8-4-2023_709-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-ABC_News_8-4-2023-709">[669]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Ipsos_8-4-2023_710-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Ipsos_8-4-2023-710">[670]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-ABCNews-Ipsos-August2023-Q5_711-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-ABCNews-Ipsos-August2023-Q5-711">[ao]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 2–3, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,076 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.4%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>49%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">36%
</td>
<td align="center">15%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us08162023_usos65.pdf">Quinnipiac University</a><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac_8-16-2023_712-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac_8-16-2023-712">[671]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac-August2023-Q31_713-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac-August2023-Q31-713">[ap]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 10–14, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,818 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.5%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>68%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">23%
</td>
<td align="center">9%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230821_yahoo_results.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q39_714-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q39-714">[aq]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 17–21, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,665 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.8%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>60%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">26%
</td>
<td align="center">14%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-09/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Large%20Sample%20Poll%20%235%20Topline%2009%2020%202023.pdf">Reuters/Ipsos</a><sup id="cite_ref-Ipsos_9-21-2023_715-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Ipsos_9-21-2023-715">[672]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-September2023_716-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Reuters-Ipsos-September2023-716">[ar]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">September 8–14, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">4,415 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 1.8%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>57%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">26%
</td>
<td align="center">17%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_202309291156.pdf">NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist</a><sup id="cite_ref-PBS_NewsHour_12-19-2023_717-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-PBS_NewsHour_12-19-2023-717">[673]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Marist_10-4-2023_718-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Marist_10-4-2023-718">[674]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-NPR-PBSNewsHour-Marist_703-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-NPR-PBSNewsHour-Marist-703">[aj]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">September 25–28, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,256 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.5%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>66%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">33%
</td>
<td align="center">1%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-12/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Large%20Sample%20Survey%20%236%20Topline%2012%2013%202023.pdf">Reuters/Ipsos</a><sup id="cite_ref-Reuters_12-11-2023_719-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Reuters_12-11-2023-719">[675]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-December2023_720-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Reuters-Ipsos-December2023-720">[as]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">December 5–11, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">4,411 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 1.8%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>64%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">28%
</td>
<td align="center">9%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20231218_yahoo_toplines.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-Yahoo!_News_12-19-2023_721-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Yahoo!_News_12-19-2023-721">[676]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q25_722-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q25-722">[at]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">December 14–18, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,533 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.8%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>63%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">25%
</td>
<td align="center">12%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2024-01/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Large%20Sample%20Survey%20%23%201%20January%202024%20Topline.pdf">Reuters/Ipsos</a><sup id="cite_ref-Ipsos_1-16-2024_723-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Ipsos_1-16-2024-723">[677]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-January2024_724-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Reuters-Ipsos-January2024-724">[au]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 3–9, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">4,677 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 1.5%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>58%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">20%
</td>
<td align="center">22%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/609344/felonies-old-age-heavily-count-against-candidates.aspx">Gallup</a><sup id="cite_ref-Gallup_725-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Gallup-725">[av]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 2–22, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">506 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 6.0%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>70%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">23%
</td>
<td align="center">7%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_toplines_final.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024_694-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024-694">[662]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q15_726-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q15-726">[aw]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 25–29, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">1,594 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>53%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">33%
</td>
<td align="center">13%
</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table class="wikitable">
<caption style="font-size:100%">Conspiring to overturn the results of a presidential election is a serious crime
</caption>
<tbody><tr valign="bottom">
<th style="width:210px;">Poll source
</th>
<th style="width:200px;">Date(s) administered
</th>
<th class="small">Sample size
</th>
<th><small>MoE</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;">% agree
</th>
<th style="width:100px;">% disagree
</th>
<th style="width:100px;">% no opinion
</th></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230530_yahoo_toplines.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48c_727-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48c-727">[ax]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">May 25–30, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,520 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>66%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">18%
</td>
<td align="center">16%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230717_yahoo_toplines.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24c_728-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24c-728">[ay]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">July 13–17, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,638 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>70%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">16%
</td>
<td align="center">14%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/Topline%20ABC_Ipsos%20Poll%20Final.pdf">ABC News/Ipsos</a><sup id="cite_ref-ABC_News_8-4-2023_709-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-ABC_News_8-4-2023-709">[669]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Ipsos_8-4-2023_710-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Ipsos_8-4-2023-710">[670]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-ABCNews-Ipsos-August2023-Q2_729-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-ABCNews-Ipsos-August2023-Q2-729">[az]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 2–3, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,076 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.4%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>65%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">24%
</td>
<td align="center">10%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us08162023_usos65.pdf">Quinnipiac University</a><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac_8-16-2023_712-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac_8-16-2023-712">[671]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32_730-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32-730">[ba]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 10–14, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,818 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.5%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>64%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">32%
</td>
<td align="center">4%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230821_yahoo_results.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q29c_731-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q29c-731">[bb]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 17–21, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,665 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.8%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>70%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">17%
</td>
<td align="center">13%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us09132023_uscj98.pdf">Quinnipiac University</a><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac_9-13-2023_732-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac_9-13-2023-732">[678]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac-September2023_733-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac-September2023-733">[bc]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">September 7–11, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,910 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.2%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>63%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">34%
</td>
<td align="center">3%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20231218_yahoo_toplines.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-Yahoo!_News_12-19-2023_721-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Yahoo!_News_12-19-2023-721">[676]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q24c_734-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q24c-734">[bd]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">December 14–18, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,533 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.8%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>66%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">18%
</td>
<td align="center">15%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20231221.pdf">YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YouGov-December2023-Q4_735-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YouGov-December2023-Q4-735">[be]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">December 21–30, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,000 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 4.0%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>67%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">25%
</td>
<td align="center">9%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_toplines_final.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024_694-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024-694">[662]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q12_736-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q12-736">[bf]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 25–29, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">1,594 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>58%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">17%
</td>
<td align="center">16%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20240125.pdf">YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YouGov-January2024-Q5_737-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YouGov-January2024-Q5-737">[bg]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 25–29, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">1,000 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.8%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>63%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">27%
</td>
<td align="center">10%
</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table class="wikitable">
<caption style="font-size:100%">Attempting to obstruct the certification of a presidential election is a serious crime
</caption>
<tbody><tr valign="bottom">
<th style="width:210px;">Poll source
</th>
<th style="width:200px;">Date(s) administered
</th>
<th class="small">Sample size
</th>
<th><small>MoE</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;">% agree
</th>
<th style="width:100px;">% disagree
</th>
<th style="width:100px;">% no opinion
</th></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230530_yahoo_toplines.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48d_738-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48d-738">[bh]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">May 25–30, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,520 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>63%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">20%
</td>
<td align="center">17%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230717_yahoo_toplines.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24d_739-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24d-739">[bi]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">July 13–17, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,638 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>67%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">17%
</td>
<td align="center">16%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/Topline%20ABC_Ipsos%20Poll%20Final.pdf">ABC News/Ipsos</a><sup id="cite_ref-ABC_News_8-4-2023_709-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-ABC_News_8-4-2023-709">[669]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Ipsos_8-4-2023_710-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Ipsos_8-4-2023-710">[670]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-ABCNews-Ipsos-August2023-Q2_729-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-ABCNews-Ipsos-August2023-Q2-729">[az]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 2–3, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,076 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.4%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>65%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">24%
</td>
<td align="center">10%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us08162023_usos65.pdf">Quinnipiac University</a><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac_8-16-2023_712-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac_8-16-2023-712">[671]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32_730-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32-730">[ba]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 10–14, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,818 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.5%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>64%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">32%
</td>
<td align="center">4%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230821_yahoo_results.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q29d_740-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q29d-740">[bj]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 17–21, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,665 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.8%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>70%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">17%
</td>
<td align="center">13%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us09132023_uscj98.pdf">Quinnipiac University</a><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac_9-13-2023_732-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac_9-13-2023-732">[678]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac-September2023_733-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac-September2023-733">[bc]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">September 7–11, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,910 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.2%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>63%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">34%
</td>
<td align="center">3%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20231218_yahoo_toplines.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-Yahoo!_News_12-19-2023_721-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Yahoo!_News_12-19-2023-721">[676]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q24d_741-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q24d-741">[bk]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">December 14–18, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,533 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.8%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>64%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">19%
</td>
<td align="center">17%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20231221.pdf">YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YouGov-December2023-Q4_735-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YouGov-December2023-Q4-735">[be]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">December 21–30, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,000 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 4.0%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>67%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">25%
</td>
<td align="center">9%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_toplines_final.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024_694-3" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024-694">[662]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q12_736-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q12-736">[bf]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 25–29, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">1,594 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>54%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">17%
</td>
<td align="center">16%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20240125.pdf">YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YouGov-January2024-Q5_737-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YouGov-January2024-Q5-737">[bg]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 25–29, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">1,000 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.8%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>63%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">27%
</td>
<td align="center">10%
</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table class="wikitable">
<caption style="font-size:100%">Inciting or aiding an insurrection against the federal government is a serious crime
</caption>
<tbody><tr valign="bottom">
<th style="width:210px;">Poll source
</th>
<th style="width:200px;">Date(s) administered
</th>
<th class="small">Sample size
</th>
<th><small>MoE</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;">% agree
</th>
<th style="width:100px;">% disagree
</th>
<th style="width:100px;">% no opinion
</th></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230530_yahoo_toplines.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48e_742-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48e-742">[bl]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">May 25–30, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,520 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>64%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">17%
</td>
<td align="center">19%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230717_yahoo_toplines.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24e_743-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24e-743">[bm]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">July 13–17, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,638 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>70%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">14%
</td>
<td align="center">16%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/Topline%20ABC_Ipsos%20Poll%20Final.pdf">ABC News/Ipsos</a><sup id="cite_ref-ABC_News_8-4-2023_709-3" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-ABC_News_8-4-2023-709">[669]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Ipsos_8-4-2023_710-3" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Ipsos_8-4-2023-710">[670]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-ABCNews-Ipsos-August2023-Q2_729-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-ABCNews-Ipsos-August2023-Q2-729">[az]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 2–3, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,076 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.4%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>65%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">24%
</td>
<td align="center">10%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us08162023_usos65.pdf">Quinnipiac University</a><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac_8-16-2023_712-3" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac_8-16-2023-712">[671]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32_730-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32-730">[ba]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 10–14, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,818 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.5%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>64%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">32%
</td>
<td align="center">4%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us09132023_uscj98.pdf">Quinnipiac University</a><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac_9-13-2023_732-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac_9-13-2023-732">[678]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac-September2023_733-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac-September2023-733">[bc]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">September 7–11, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,910 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.2%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>63%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">34%
</td>
<td align="center">3%
</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table class="wikitable">
<caption style="font-size:100%">January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was not justified and was a criminal act
</caption>
<tbody><tr valign="bottom">
<th style="width:210px;">Poll source
</th>
<th style="width:200px;">Date(s) administered
</th>
<th class="small">Sample size
</th>
<th><small>MoE</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;">% agree
</th>
<th style="width:100px;">% disagree
</th>
<th style="width:100px;">% no opinion
</th></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2022-08/Reuters%20News%20Issue%20Poll%208%20-%20Political%20Violence%20Topline%20Aug%2016-17%202022.pdf">Reuters/Ipsos</a><sup id="cite_ref-Ipsos_8-22-2022_744-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Ipsos_8-22-2022-744">[679]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-August2022_745-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Reuters-Ipsos-August2022-745">[bn]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 16–17, 2022
</td>
<td align="center">1,005 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.8%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>67%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">33%
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230821_yahoo_results.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-August2023_746-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-746">[bo]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 17–21, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,665 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.8%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>68%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">10%
</td>
<td align="center">21%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/January_6th_Capitol_Takeover_poll_results.pdf">YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024_747-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-747">[bp]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 2–4, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">1,000 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 4.1%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>74%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">14%
</td>
<td align="center">13%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/cbsnews_20240107_PDF1.pdf">CBS News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-CBSNews-YouGov-January2024-Q23_748-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-CBSNews-YouGov-January2024-Q23-748">[bq]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 3–5, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">2,157 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.8%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>78%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">22%
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_toplines_final.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024_694-4" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024-694">[662]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q22_749-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q22-749">[br]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 25–29, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">1,594 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>62%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">13%
</td>
<td align="center">25%
</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table class="wikitable">
<caption style="font-size:100%">Trial in federal obstruction case against Trump should occur before the general election in 2024
</caption>
<tbody><tr valign="bottom">
<th style="width:210px;">Poll source
</th>
<th style="width:200px;">Date(s) administered
</th>
<th class="small">Sample size
</th>
<th><small>MoE</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;">% agree
</th>
<th style="width:100px;">% disagree
</th>
<th style="width:100px;">% no opinion
</th></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/August%202023%20Politico%20Magazine%20Survey%20Trump%20Indictments.pdf">Politico/Ipsos</a><sup id="cite_ref-Politico_8-25-2023_750-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Politico_8-25-2023-750">[680]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Ipsos_8-25-2023_751-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Ipsos_8-25-2023-751">[681]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Politico-Ipsos-August2023_752-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Politico-Ipsos-August2023-752">[bs]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 18–21, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,032 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.2%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>61%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">19%
</td>
<td align="center">19%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20231218_yahoo_toplines.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-Yahoo!_News_12-19-2023_721-3" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Yahoo!_News_12-19-2023-721">[676]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q28_753-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q28-753">[bt]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">December 14–18, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,533 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.8%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>61%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">21%
</td>
<td align="center">19%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20231221.pdf">YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YouGov-December2023-Q8_754-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YouGov-December2023-Q8-754">[bu]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">December 21–30, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,000 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 4.0%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>42%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">19%
</td>
<td align="center">39%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_toplines_final.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024_694-5" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024-694">[662]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q17_755-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q17-755">[bv]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 25–29, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">1,594 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>58%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">23%
</td>
<td align="center">19%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20240125.pdf">YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YouGov-January2024-Q9_756-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YouGov-January2024-Q9-756">[bw]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 25–29, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">1,000 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.8%
</td>
<td style="background:#17aa5c" align="center"><b>41%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">22%
</td>
<td align="center">38%
</td></tr></tbody></table>
<h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Party_affiliation">Party affiliation</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=30" title="Edit section: Party affiliation"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3>
<table class="wikitable">
<caption style="font-size:100%">January 6 investigations, charges, or conviction disqualify Trump from Presidency under 14th Amendment by states or Supreme Court
</caption>
<tbody><tr valign="bottom">
<th style="width:190px;">Poll source
</th>
<th style="width:200px;">Date(s)<br />administered
</th>
<th class="small">Sample<br />size
</th>
<th><small>MoE</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>DEM<br />% agree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>DEM<br />% disagree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>DEM<br />% no<br />opinion</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>IND<br />% agree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>IND<br />% disagree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>IND<br />% no<br />opinion</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>GOP<br />% agree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>GOP<br />% disagree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>GOP<br />% no<br />opinion</small>
</th></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20220927_yahoo_tabs.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-Yahoo!_News_9-30-2022_674-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Yahoo!_News_9-30-2022-674">[653]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-September2022_675-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-September2022-675">[v]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">September 23–27, 2022
</td>
<td align="center">1,566 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>80%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">10%
</td>
<td align="center">10%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>50%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">32%
</td>
<td align="center">18%
</td>
<td align="center">17%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>62%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">21%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20221017_yahoo_tabs.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-October2022_676-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-October2022-676">[w]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">October 13–17, 2022
</td>
<td align="center">1,629 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>81%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">11%
</td>
<td align="center">9%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>43%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">39%
</td>
<td align="center">18%
</td>
<td align="center">22%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>66%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">13%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230227_yahoo_tabs.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-February2023_677-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-February2023-677">[x]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">February 23–27, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,516 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>77%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">12%
</td>
<td align="center">11%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>46%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">41%
</td>
<td align="center">13%
</td>
<td align="center">18%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>69%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">13%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3870">Quinnipiac University</a><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac_3-29-2023_678-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac_3-29-2023-678">[654]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac-March2023_679-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac-March2023-679">[y]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">March 23–27, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,788 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.3%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>88%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">9%
</td>
<td align="center">3%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>55%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">36%
</td>
<td align="center">8%
</td>
<td align="center">23%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>75%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">2%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Trump%20Indictment%20Wave%205%20Federal%20Charges%20Topline%2008%2003%202023_0.pdf">Reuters/Ipsos</a><sup id="cite_ref-Reuters_8-3-2023_680-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Reuters_8-3-2023-680">[655]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Ipsos_8-3-2023_681-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Ipsos_8-3-2023-681">[656]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-August2023-TM3138Y23_682-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Reuters-Ipsos-August2023-TM3138Y23-682">[z]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 2–3, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,005 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.8%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>85%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">11%
</td>
<td align="center">4%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>64%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">29%
</td>
<td align="center">7%
</td>
<td align="center">32%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>60%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">7%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23936298/cnn-poll-on-gop-primary-voters.pdf">CNN/SSRS</a><sup id="cite_ref-CNN_9-5-2023_683-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-CNN_9-5-2023-683">[657]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-CNN-SSRS-September2023_684-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-CNN-SSRS-September2023-684">[aa]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 25–31, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,503 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.5%
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td>
<td align="center">17%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>83%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">2%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/tablet/2023/09/24/sept-15-20-2023-washington-post-abc-news-poll/">Washington Post/ABC News</a><sup id="cite_ref-Washington_Post_9-29-2023_685-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Washington_Post_9-29-2023-685">[658]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-WashingtonPost-ABCNews-September2023_686-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-WashingtonPost-ABCNews-September2023-686">[ab]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">September 15–20, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,006 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.5%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>73%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">22%
</td>
<td align="center">5%
</td>
<td align="center">43%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>52%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">6%
</td>
<td align="center">15%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>81%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">4%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000018a-e139-dd68-a3cf-fbf97b870000">Morning Consult/Politico</a><sup id="cite_ref-Politico_9-29-2023_687-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Politico_9-29-2023-687">[659]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-MorningConsult-Politico-September2023_688-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-MorningConsult-Politico-September2023-688">[ac]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">September 23–25, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,967 RV
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.0%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>81%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">9%
</td>
<td align="center">10%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>48%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">33%
</td>
<td align="center">19%
</td>
<td align="center">21%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>63%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">15%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.newsnationnow.com/polls/full-survey-views-on-gop-candidates-foreign-conflicts-and-more/">NewsNation/Decision Desk HQ</a><sup id="cite_ref-NewsNation-DecisionDeskHQ-November2023_689-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-NewsNation-DecisionDeskHQ-November2023-689">[ad]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">November 26–27, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">3,200 RV
</td>
<td align="center">± 1.7%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>85%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">15%
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>60%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">40%
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td>
<td align="center">28%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>72%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/cbsnews_20240107_PDF1.pdf">CBS News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-CBSNews-YouGov-January2024-Q33_690-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-CBSNews-YouGov-January2024-Q33-690">[ae]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 3–5, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">2,157 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.8%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>81%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">19%
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td>
<td align="center">44%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>56%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td>
<td align="center">10%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>90%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_tabs_final.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024_694-6" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024-694">[662]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q27_695-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q27-695">[ag]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 25–29, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">1,594 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>81%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">5%
</td>
<td align="center">14%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>43%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">42%
</td>
<td align="center">15%
</td>
<td align="center">12%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>80%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">8%
</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table class="wikitable">
<caption style="font-size:100%">Trump should withdraw candidacy due to January 6 charges or not serve or be elected President if charged or convicted of a serious crime
</caption>
<tbody><tr valign="bottom">
<th style="width:230px;">Poll source
</th>
<th style="width:200px;">Date(s)<br />administered
</th>
<th class="small">Sample<br />size
</th>
<th><small>MoE</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>DEM<br />% agree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>DEM<br />% disagree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>DEM<br />% no<br />opinion</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>IND<br />% agree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>IND<br />% disagree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>IND<br />% no<br />opinion</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>GOP<br />% agree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>GOP<br />% disagree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>GOP<br />% no<br />opinion</small>
</th></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-03/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Large%20Sample%20Survey%20Issues%20Poll%20March%202023%20Topline%2003%2024%202023.pdf">Reuters/Ipsos</a><sup id="cite_ref-Ipsos_3-24-2023_696-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Ipsos_3-24-2023-696">[663]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-March2023_697-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Reuters-Ipsos-March2023-697">[ah]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">March 14–20, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">4,410 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 1.8%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>87%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">10%
</td>
<td align="center">3%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>59%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">26%
</td>
<td align="center">15%
</td>
<td align="center">44%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>50%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">6%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-04/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Trump%20Indictment%20Survey%20Topline%204.6.23_0.pdf">Reuters/Ipsos</a><sup id="cite_ref-Reuters_4-6-2023_698-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Reuters_4-6-2023-698">[664]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Ipsos_4-7-2023_699-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Ipsos_4-7-2023-699">[665]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-April2023_700-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Reuters-Ipsos-April2023-700">[ai]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">April 5–6, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,004 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.8%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>82%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">14%
</td>
<td align="center">4%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>49%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">43%
</td>
<td align="center">9%
</td>
<td align="center">18%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>75%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">6%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_Trump_202304211108-1.pdf">NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist</a><sup id="cite_ref-NPR_4-25-2023_701-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-NPR_4-25-2023-701">[666]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Marist_4-25-2023_702-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Marist_4-25-2023-702">[667]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-NPR-PBSNewsHour-Marist_703-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-NPR-PBSNewsHour-Marist-703">[aj]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">April 17–19, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,291 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.4%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>95%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">4%
</td>
<td align="center">1%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>75%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">21%
</td>
<td align="center">4%
</td>
<td align="center">34%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>63%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">3%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230530_yahoo_tabs.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q50_704-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q50-704">[ak]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">May 25–30, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,520 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>84%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">10%
</td>
<td align="center">7%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>63%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">22%
</td>
<td align="center">15%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>43%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">39%
</td>
<td align="center">18%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-06/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Trump%20Indictment%20Wave%204%20Federal%20Charges%20Topline%2006%2013%202023.pdf">Reuters/Ipsos</a><sup id="cite_ref-Ipsos_6-13-2023_705-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Ipsos_6-13-2023-705">[668]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-June_2023_706-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Reuters-Ipsos-June_2023-706">[al]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">June 9–12, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,005 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.8%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>80%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">16%
</td>
<td align="center">4%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>51%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">30%
</td>
<td align="center">20%
</td>
<td align="center">17%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>71%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">12%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230717_yahoo_tabs.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q29_707-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q29-707">[am]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">July 13–17, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,638 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>87%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">7%
</td>
<td align="center">6%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>63%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">25%
</td>
<td align="center">12%
</td>
<td align="center">34%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>48%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">18%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Trump%20Indictment%20Wave%205%20Federal%20Charges%20Topline%2008%2003%202023_0.pdf">Reuters/Ipsos</a><sup id="cite_ref-Reuters_8-3-2023_680-3" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Reuters_8-3-2023-680">[655]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Ipsos_8-3-2023_681-3" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Ipsos_8-3-2023-681">[656]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-ReutersIpsosAugust2023-TM3181Y23_708-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-ReutersIpsosAugust2023-TM3181Y23-708">[an]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 2–3, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,005 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.8%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>89%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">7%
</td>
<td align="center">3%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>69%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">12%
</td>
<td align="center">19%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>45%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">35%
</td>
<td align="center">20%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us08162023_usos65.pdf">Quinnipiac University</a><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac_8-16-2023_712-4" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac_8-16-2023-712">[671]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac-August2023-Q31_713-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac-August2023-Q31-713">[ap]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 10–14, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,818 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.5%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>84%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">13%
</td>
<td align="center">8%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>68%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">25%
</td>
<td align="center">7%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>58%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">28%
</td>
<td align="center">14%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230821_yahoo_results.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q39_714-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q39-714">[aq]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 17–21, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,665 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.8%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>89%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">5%
</td>
<td align="center">5%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>56%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">29%
</td>
<td align="center">15%
</td>
<td align="center">29%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>53%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">18%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-09/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Large%20Sample%20Poll%20%235%20Topline%2009%2020%202023.pdf">Reuters/Ipsos</a><sup id="cite_ref-Ipsos_9-21-2023_715-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Ipsos_9-21-2023-715">[672]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-September2023_716-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Reuters-Ipsos-September2023-716">[ar]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">September 8–14, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">4,415 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 1.8%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>88%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">7%
</td>
<td align="center">5%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>57%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">19%
</td>
<td align="center">24%
</td>
<td align="center">30%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>52%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">19%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_202309291156.pdf">NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist</a><sup id="cite_ref-PBS_NewsHour_12-19-2023_717-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-PBS_NewsHour_12-19-2023-717">[673]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Marist_10-4-2023_718-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Marist_10-4-2023-718">[674]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-NPR-PBSNewsHour-Marist_703-3" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-NPR-PBSNewsHour-Marist-703">[aj]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">September 25–28, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,256 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.5%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>94%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">5%
</td>
<td align="center">1%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>67%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">32%
</td>
<td align="center">1%
</td>
<td align="center">30%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>67%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">3%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-12/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Large%20Sample%20Survey%20%236%20Topline%2012%2013%202023.pdf">Reuters/Ipsos</a><sup id="cite_ref-Reuters_12-11-2023_719-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Reuters_12-11-2023-719">[675]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-December2023_720-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Reuters-Ipsos-December2023-720">[as]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">December 5–11, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">4,411 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 1.8%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>89%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">8%
</td>
<td align="center">3%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>69%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">19%
</td>
<td align="center">13%
</td>
<td align="center">37%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>57%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">6%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/19/us/elections/times-siena-national-poll-toplines.html">New York Times/Siena College</a><sup id="cite_ref-757" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-757">[682]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-758" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-758">[bx]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">December 10–14, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">380 RV
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td>
<td align="center">32%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>62%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">7%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20231218_yahoo_tabs.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-Yahoo!_News_12-19-2023_721-4" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Yahoo!_News_12-19-2023-721">[676]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q25_722-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q25-722">[at]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">December 14–18, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,533 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.8%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>91%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">5%
</td>
<td align="center">4%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>61%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">25%
</td>
<td align="center">14%
</td>
<td align="center">35%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>50%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">15%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2024-01/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Large%20Sample%20Survey%20%23%201%20January%202024%20Topline.pdf">Reuters/Ipsos</a><sup id="cite_ref-Ipsos_1-16-2024_723-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Ipsos_1-16-2024-723">[677]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-January2024_724-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Reuters-Ipsos-January2024-724">[au]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 3–9, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">4,677 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 1.5%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>91%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">3%
</td>
<td align="center">6%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>55%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">14%
</td>
<td align="center">30%
</td>
<td align="center">28%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>43%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">29%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/609344/felonies-old-age-heavily-count-against-candidates.aspx">Gallup</a><sup id="cite_ref-Gallup_725-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Gallup-725">[av]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 2–22, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">506 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 6.0%
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td>
<td align="center">15%
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td>
<td align="center">21%
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td>
<td align="center">35%
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_tabs_final.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024_694-7" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024-694">[662]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q15_726-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q15-726">[aw]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 25–29, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">1,594 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>86%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">8%
</td>
<td align="center">6%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>51%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">34%
</td>
<td align="center">15%
</td>
<td align="center">19%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>65%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">16%
</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table class="wikitable">
<caption style="font-size:100%">Conspiring to overturn the results of a presidential election is a serious crime
</caption>
<tbody><tr valign="bottom">
<th style="width:190px;">Poll source
</th>
<th style="width:200px;">Date(s)<br />administered
</th>
<th class="small">Sample<br />size
</th>
<th><small>MoE</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>DEM<br />% agree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>DEM<br />% disagree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>DEM<br />% no<br />opinion</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>IND<br />% agree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>IND<br />% disagree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>IND<br />% no<br />opinion</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>GOP<br />% agree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>GOP<br />% disagree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>GOP<br />% no<br />opinion</small>
</th></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230530_yahoo_tabs.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48c_727-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48c-727">[ax]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">May 25–30, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,520 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>85%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">7%
</td>
<td align="center">8%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>64%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">20%
</td>
<td align="center">16%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>50%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">31%
</td>
<td align="center">19%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230717_yahoo_tabs.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24c_728-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24c-728">[ay]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">July 13–17, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,638 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>88%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">6%
</td>
<td align="center">6%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>70%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">16%
</td>
<td align="center">14%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>48%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">29%
</td>
<td align="center">23%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us08162023_usos65.pdf">Quinnipiac University</a><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac_8-16-2023_712-5" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac_8-16-2023-712">[671]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32_730-3" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32-730">[ba]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 10–14, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,818 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.5%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>94%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">5%
</td>
<td align="center">1%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>66%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">30%
</td>
<td align="center">4%
</td>
<td align="center">30%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>66%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">4%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230821_yahoo_results.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q29c_731-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q29c-731">[bb]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 17–21, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,665 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.8%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>93%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">4%
</td>
<td align="center">3%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>67%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">20%
</td>
<td align="center">13%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>47%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">32%
</td>
<td align="center">21%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us09132023_uscj98.pdf">Quinnipiac University</a><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac_9-13-2023_732-3" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac_9-13-2023-732">[678]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac-September2023_733-3" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac-September2023-733">[bc]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">September 7–11, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,910 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.2%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>97%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">2%
</td>
<td align="center">1%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>64%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">32%
</td>
<td align="center">5%
</td>
<td align="center">31%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>65%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">4%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20231218_yahoo_tabs.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-Yahoo!_News_12-19-2023_721-5" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Yahoo!_News_12-19-2023-721">[676]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q24c_734-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q24c-734">[bd]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">December 14–18, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,533 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.8%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>89%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">6%
</td>
<td align="center">5%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>66%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">18%
</td>
<td align="center">16%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>43%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">35%
</td>
<td align="center">23%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20231221.pdf">YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YouGov-December2023-Q4_735-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YouGov-December2023-Q4-735">[be]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">December 21–30, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,000 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 4.0%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>92%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">5%
</td>
<td align="center">2%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>65%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">20%
</td>
<td align="center">14%
</td>
<td align="center">40%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>50%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">11%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_tabs_final.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024_694-8" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024-694">[662]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q12_736-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q12-736">[bf]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 25–29, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">1,594 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>83%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">4%
</td>
<td align="center">5%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>57%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">20%
</td>
<td align="center">14%
</td>
<td align="center">32%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>33%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">26%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20240125.pdf">YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YouGov-January2024-Q5_737-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YouGov-January2024-Q5-737">[bg]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 25–29, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">1,000 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.8%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>85%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">8%
</td>
<td align="center">7%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>60%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">23%
</td>
<td align="center">16%
</td>
<td align="center">43%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>51%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">6%
</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table class="wikitable">
<caption style="font-size:100%">Attempting to obstruct the certification of a presidential election is a serious crime
</caption>
<tbody><tr valign="bottom">
<th style="width:190px;">Poll source
</th>
<th style="width:200px;">Date(s)<br />administered
</th>
<th class="small">Sample<br />size
</th>
<th><small>MoE</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>DEM<br />% agree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>DEM<br />% disagree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>DEM<br />% no<br />opinion</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>IND<br />% agree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>IND<br />% disagree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>IND<br />% no<br />opinion</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>GOP<br />% agree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>GOP<br />% disagree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>GOP<br />% no<br />opinion</small>
</th></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230530_yahoo_tabs.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48d_738-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48d-738">[bh]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">May 25–30, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,520 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>82%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">9%
</td>
<td align="center">8%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>63%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">22%
</td>
<td align="center">15%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>43%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">36%
</td>
<td align="center">21%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230717_yahoo_tabs.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24d_739-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24d-739">[bi]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">July 13–17, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,638 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>89%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">5%
</td>
<td align="center">6%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>65%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">18%
</td>
<td align="center">17%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>45%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">32%
</td>
<td align="center">23%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us08162023_usos65.pdf">Quinnipiac University</a><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac_8-16-2023_712-6" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac_8-16-2023-712">[671]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32_730-4" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32-730">[ba]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 10–14, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,818 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.5%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>94%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">5%
</td>
<td align="center">1%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>66%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">30%
</td>
<td align="center">4%
</td>
<td align="center">30%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>66%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">4%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230821_yahoo_results.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q29d_740-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q29d-740">[bj]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 17–21, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,665 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.8%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>92%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">4%
</td>
<td align="center">5%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>68%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">20%
</td>
<td align="center">12%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>47%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">33%
</td>
<td align="center">21%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us09132023_uscj98.pdf">Quinnipiac University</a><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac_9-13-2023_732-4" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac_9-13-2023-732">[678]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac-September2023_733-4" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac-September2023-733">[bc]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">September 7–11, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,910 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.2%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>97%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">2%
</td>
<td align="center">1%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>64%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">32%
</td>
<td align="center">5%
</td>
<td align="center">31%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>65%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">4%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20231218_yahoo_tabs.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-Yahoo!_News_12-19-2023_721-6" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Yahoo!_News_12-19-2023-721">[676]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q24d_741-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q24d-741">[bk]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">December 14–18, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,533 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.8%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>89%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">6%
</td>
<td align="center">5%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>62%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">21%
</td>
<td align="center">17%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>39%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">35%
</td>
<td align="center">25%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20231221.pdf">YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YouGov-December2023-Q4_735-3" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YouGov-December2023-Q4-735">[be]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">December 21–30, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,000 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 4.0%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>92%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">5%
</td>
<td align="center">2%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>65%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">20%
</td>
<td align="center">14%
</td>
<td align="center">40%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>50%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">11%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_tabs_final.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024_694-9" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024-694">[662]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q12_736-3" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q12-736">[bf]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 25–29, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">1,594 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>80%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">4%
</td>
<td align="center">5%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>52%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">20%
</td>
<td align="center">14%
</td>
<td align="center">27%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>33%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">26%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20240125.pdf">YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YouGov-January2024-Q5_737-3" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YouGov-January2024-Q5-737">[bg]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 25–29, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">1,000 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.8%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>85%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">8%
</td>
<td align="center">7%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>60%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">23%
</td>
<td align="center">16%
</td>
<td align="center">43%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>51%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">6%
</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table class="wikitable">
<caption style="font-size:100%">Inciting or aiding an insurrection against the federal government is a serious crime
</caption>
<tbody><tr valign="bottom">
<th style="width:190px;">Poll source
</th>
<th style="width:200px;">Date(s)<br />administered
</th>
<th class="small">Sample<br />size
</th>
<th><small>MoE</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>DEM<br />% agree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>DEM<br />% disagree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>DEM<br />% no<br />opinion</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>IND<br />% agree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>IND<br />% disagree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>IND<br />% no<br />opinion</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>GOP<br />% agree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>GOP<br />% disagree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>GOP<br />% no<br />opinion</small>
</th></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230530_yahoo_tabs.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48e_742-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48e-742">[bl]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">May 25–30, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,520 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>81%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">10%
</td>
<td align="center">9%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>66%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">16%
</td>
<td align="center">18%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>47%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">28%
</td>
<td align="center">25%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230717_yahoo_tabs.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24e_743-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24e-743">[bm]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">July 13–17, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,638 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>87%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">6%
</td>
<td align="center">6%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>70%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">14%
</td>
<td align="center">16%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>50%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">27%
</td>
<td align="center">23%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us08162023_usos65.pdf">Quinnipiac University</a><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac_8-16-2023_712-7" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac_8-16-2023-712">[671]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32_730-5" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32-730">[ba]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 10–14, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,818 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.5%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>94%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">5%
</td>
<td align="center">1%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>66%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">30%
</td>
<td align="center">4%
</td>
<td align="center">30%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>66%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">4%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us09132023_uscj98.pdf">Quinnipiac University</a><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac_9-13-2023_732-5" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac_9-13-2023-732">[678]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Quinnipiac-September2023_733-5" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Quinnipiac-September2023-733">[bc]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">September 7–11, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,910 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.2%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>97%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">2%
</td>
<td align="center">1%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>64%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">32%
</td>
<td align="center">5%
</td>
<td align="center">31%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>65%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">4%
</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table class="wikitable">
<caption style="font-size:100%">January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was not justified and was a criminal act
</caption>
<tbody><tr valign="bottom">
<th style="width:190px;">Poll source
</th>
<th style="width:200px;">Date(s)<br />administered
</th>
<th class="small">Sample<br />size
</th>
<th><small>MoE</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>DEM<br />% agree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>DEM<br />% disagree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>DEM<br />% no<br />opinion</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>IND<br />% agree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>IND<br />% disagree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>IND<br />% no<br />opinion</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>GOP<br />% agree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>GOP<br />% disagree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>GOP<br />% no<br />opinion</small>
</th></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2022-08/Reuters%20News%20Issue%20Poll%208%20-%20Political%20Violence%20Topline%20Aug%2016-17%202022.pdf">Reuters/Ipsos</a><sup id="cite_ref-Ipsos_8-22-2022_744-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Ipsos_8-22-2022-744">[679]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-August2022_745-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Reuters-Ipsos-August2022-745">[bn]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 16–17, 2022
</td>
<td align="center">1,005 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.8%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>84%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">16%
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>71%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">29%
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td>
<td align="center">47%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>53%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20230821_yahoo_results.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-August2023_746-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-746">[bo]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 17–21, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,665 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.8%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>87%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">4%
</td>
<td align="center">9%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>66%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">12%
</td>
<td align="center">22%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>53%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">19%
</td>
<td align="center">28%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/January_6th_Capitol_Takeover_poll_results.pdf">YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024_747-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-747">[bp]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 2–4, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">1,000 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 4.1%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>92%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">5%
</td>
<td align="center">2%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>66%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">13%
</td>
<td align="center">21%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>63%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">22%
</td>
<td align="center">15%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/cbsnews_20240107_PDF1.pdf">CBS News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-CBSNews-YouGov-January2024-Q23_748-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-CBSNews-YouGov-January2024-Q23-748">[bq]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 3–5, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">2,157 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.8%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>84%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">16%
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>82%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">18%
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>70%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">30%
</td>
<td align="center">—
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_tabs_final.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024_694-10" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024-694">[662]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q22_749-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q22-749">[br]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 25–29, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">1,594 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>79%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">9%
</td>
<td align="center">12%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>61%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">14%
</td>
<td align="center">25%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>48%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">20%
</td>
<td align="center">32%
</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table class="wikitable">
<caption style="font-size:100%">Trial in federal obstruction case against Trump should occur before the general election in 2024
</caption>
<tbody><tr valign="bottom">
<th style="width:190px;">Poll source
</th>
<th style="width:200px;">Date(s) administered
</th>
<th class="small">Sample size
</th>
<th><small>MoE</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>DEM<br />% agree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>DEM<br />% disagree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>DEM<br />% no<br />opinion</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>IND<br />% agree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>IND<br />% disagree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>IND<br />% no<br />opinion</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>GOP<br />% agree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>GOP<br />% disagree</small>
</th>
<th style="width:100px;"><small>GOP<br />% no<br />opinion</small>
</th></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-08/August%202023%20Politico%20Magazine%20Survey%20Trump%20Indictments.pdf">Politico/Ipsos</a><sup id="cite_ref-Politico_8-25-2023_750-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Politico_8-25-2023-750">[680]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Ipsos_8-25-2023_751-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Ipsos_8-25-2023-751">[681]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Politico-Ipsos-August2023_752-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Politico-Ipsos-August2023-752">[bs]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">August 18–21, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,032 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.2%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>89%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">3%
</td>
<td align="center">8%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>63%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">14%
</td>
<td align="center">22%
</td>
<td align="center">33%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>45%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">21%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20231218_yahoo_tabs.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-Yahoo!_News_12-19-2023_721-7" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Yahoo!_News_12-19-2023-721">[676]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q28_753-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q28-753">[bt]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">December 14–18, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,533 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.8%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>87%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">6%
</td>
<td align="center">7%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>58%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">22%
</td>
<td align="center">20%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>40%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">37%
</td>
<td align="center">23%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20231221.pdf">YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YouGov-December2023-Q8_754-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YouGov-December2023-Q8-754">[bu]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">December 21–30, 2023
</td>
<td align="center">1,000 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 4.0%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>64%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">6%
</td>
<td align="center">31%
</td>
<td align="center">39%
</td>
<td align="center">15%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>47%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">22%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>40%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">39%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/20240129_yahoo_tabs_final.pdf">Yahoo! News/YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024_694-11" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024-694">[662]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q17_755-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q17-755">[bv]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 25–29, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">1,594 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 2.7%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>85%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">8%
</td>
<td align="center">8%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>62%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">21%
</td>
<td align="center">17%
</td>
<td align="center">31%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>43%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">26%
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external text" href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Trump_Investigations_poll_results_20240125.pdf">YouGov</a><sup id="cite_ref-YouGov-January2024-Q9_756-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-YouGov-January2024-Q9-756">[bw]</a></sup>
</td>
<td align="center">January 25–29, 2024
</td>
<td align="center">1,000 adults
</td>
<td align="center">± 3.8%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#B0CEFF" align="center"><b>60%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">22%
</td>
<td align="center">38%
</td>
<td align="center">39%
</td>
<td align="center">16%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#DCDCDC" align="center"><b>45%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">21%
</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFB6B6" align="center"><b>43%</b>
</td>
<td align="center">36%
</td></tr></tbody></table>
<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Reactions_from_other_candidates">Reactions from other candidates</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=31" title="Edit section: Reactions from other candidates"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2>
<p>Democratic presidential candidates <a href="/info/en/?search=Marianne_Williamson" title="Marianne Williamson">Marianne Williamson</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=Dean_Phillips" title="Dean Phillips">Dean Phillips</a> criticized the Colorado Supreme Court decision to remove another candidate from the ballot.<sup id="cite_ref-759" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-759">[683]</a></sup> The other Republican candidates at the time – <a href="/info/en/?search=Chris_Christie" title="Chris Christie">Chris Christie</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=Ron_DeSantis" title="Ron DeSantis">Ron DeSantis</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=Nikki_Haley" title="Nikki Haley">Nikki Haley</a>, and <a href="/info/en/?search=Vivek_Ramaswamy" title="Vivek Ramaswamy">Vivek Ramaswamy</a> – all criticized the decision with Christie stating "I do not believe Donald Trump should be prevented from being president of the United States, by any court; I think he should be prevented from being the president of the United States by the voters of this country", and Haley stating "the last thing we want is judges telling us who can and can't be on the ballot". Ramaswamy stated he would withdraw from the Colorado primary if the court decision stood.<sup id="cite_ref-760" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-760">[684]</a></sup>
</p>
<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Violent_incidents">Violent incidents</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=32" title="Edit section: Violent incidents"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2>
<p>There have been widespread <a href="/info/en/?search=Doxing" title="Doxing">doxxing</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=Swatting" title="Swatting">swatting</a>, and violent threats made against politicians who have attempted to remove Trump from the ballot. On December 29, 2023, Bellows was swatted.<sup id="cite_ref-:0_12-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-:0-12">[12]</a></sup> The incidents are part of the broader <a href="/info/en/?search=2023_swatting_of_American_politicians" class="mw-redirect" title="2023 swatting of American politicians">2023 swatting of American politicians</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-:0_12-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-:0-12">[12]</a></sup>
</p><p>In the early hours of January 2, 2024, a man broke into the <a href="/info/en/?search=Colorado_Supreme_Court" title="Colorado Supreme Court">Colorado Supreme Court</a>, opened fire, then surrendered to police. No one was injured, but the building was damaged. Though multiple threats had been made against the four Colorado justices who ruled to disqualify Trump, the <a href="/info/en/?search=Colorado_State_Patrol" title="Colorado State Patrol">Colorado State Patrol</a> suggested that this man may have acted alone. The man's motivations were not immediately publicized.<sup id="cite_ref-761" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-761">[685]</a></sup>
</p>
<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Footnotes">Footnotes</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=33" title="Edit section: Footnotes"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2>
<style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r1217336898">.mw-parser-output .reflist{font-size:90%;margin-bottom:0.5em;list-style-type:decimal}.mw-parser-output .reflist .references{font-size:100%;margin-bottom:0;list-style-type:inherit}.mw-parser-output .reflist-columns-2{column-width:30em}.mw-parser-output .reflist-columns-3{column-width:25em}.mw-parser-output .reflist-columns{margin-top:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .reflist-columns ol{margin-top:0}.mw-parser-output .reflist-columns li{page-break-inside:avoid;break-inside:avoid-column}.mw-parser-output .reflist-upper-alpha{list-style-type:upper-alpha}.mw-parser-output .reflist-upper-roman{list-style-type:upper-roman}.mw-parser-output .reflist-lower-alpha{list-style-type:lower-alpha}.mw-parser-output .reflist-lower-greek{list-style-type:lower-greek}.mw-parser-output .reflist-lower-roman{list-style-type:lower-roman}</style><div class="reflist reflist-lower-alpha">
<div class="mw-references-wrap mw-references-columns"><ol class="references">
<li id="cite_note-76"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-76">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">Blackman and Tillman specifically cite usage in the Impeachment Disqualification Clause of Article I, Section III,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544_72-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544-72">[72]</a></sup> the Ineligibility Clause of Article I, Section VI,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003545_73-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003545-73">[73]</a></sup> the Presidential Electors Clause and Presidential Succession Clause of Article II, Section I,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003549–551_74-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003549–551-74">[74]</a></sup> the Appointments Clause of Article II, Section II,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552_33-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552-33">[33]</a></sup> the Commissions Clause of Article II, Section III,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552_33-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552-33">[33]</a></sup> the Impeachment Clause of Article II, Section IV,<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552_33-3" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552-33">[33]</a></sup> and the Oath or Affirmation Clause and No Religious Test Clause of Article VI.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003555–556_75-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003555–556-75">[75]</a></sup></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-84"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-84">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">in "[The President] shall be removed from his office on impeachment by the House of representatives, and conviction by the Senate, for treason or bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States; the Vice President and <i>other</i> civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on impeachment and conviction as aforesaid;"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-271"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-271">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">Members of the Senate and the House expelled for supporting Confederacy included:
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_senators_from_Arkansas" title="List of United States senators from Arkansas">Arkansas Senators</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=William_K._Sebastian" title="William K. Sebastian">William K. Sebastian</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=Charles_B._Mitchel" title="Charles B. Mitchel">Charles B. Mitchel</a>;</li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_senators_from_Indiana" title="List of United States senators from Indiana">Indiana Senator</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Jesse_D._Bright" title="Jesse D. Bright">Jesse D. Bright</a>;</li>
<li>Kentucky Senator <a href="/info/en/?search=John_C._Breckinridge" title="John C. Breckinridge">John C. Breckinridge</a>;</li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_representatives_from_Kentucky" title="List of United States representatives from Kentucky">Kentucky Representative</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Henry_Cornelius_Burnett" title="Henry Cornelius Burnett">Henry Cornelius Burnett</a>;</li>
<li>Missouri Senators <a href="/info/en/?search=Trusten_Polk" title="Trusten Polk">Trusten Polk</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=Waldo_P._Johnson" title="Waldo P. Johnson">Waldo P. Johnson</a>;</li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_representatives_from_Missouri" title="List of United States representatives from Missouri">Missouri Representatives</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=John_Bullock_Clark" title="John Bullock Clark">John Bullock Clark</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=John_William_Reid" title="John William Reid">John William Reid</a>;</li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_senators_from_North_Carolina" title="List of United States senators from North Carolina">North Carolina Senators</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Thomas_L._Clingman" title="Thomas L. Clingman">Thomas L. Clingman</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=Thomas_Bragg" title="Thomas Bragg">Thomas Bragg</a>;</li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_senators_from_South_Carolina" title="List of United States senators from South Carolina">South Carolina Senator</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=James_Chesnut_Jr." title="James Chesnut Jr.">James Chesnut Jr.</a>;</li>
<li>Tennessee Senator <a href="/info/en/?search=Alfred_O._P._Nicholson" title="Alfred O. P. Nicholson">Alfred O. P. Nicholson</a>;</li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_senators_from_Texas" title="List of United States senators from Texas">Texas Senators</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=John_Hemphill_(senator)" title="John Hemphill (senator)">John Hemphill</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=Louis_Wigfall" title="Louis Wigfall">Louis Wigfall</a>;</li>
<li>Virginia Senators <a href="/info/en/?search=James_M._Mason" title="James M. Mason">James M. Mason</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=Robert_M._T._Hunter" title="Robert M. T. Hunter">Robert M. T. Hunter</a>.</li></ul>
</span></li>
<li id="cite_note-274"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-274">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">Current text of 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection:<link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1211633275"><blockquote class="templatequote"><p>"<i>Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.</i>"<sup id="cite_ref-USC_Title_18_Section_2383_273-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-USC_Title_18_Section_2383-273">[270]</a></sup></p></blockquote></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-282"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-282">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">Section 3 states "No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State".<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003562_281-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003562-281">[277]</a></sup></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-284"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-284">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">Current text of 18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason:<link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1211633275"><blockquote class="templatequote"><p>"<i>Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.<sup id="cite_ref-auto_275-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-auto-275">[271]</a></sup></i></p></blockquote></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-307"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-307">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">Under Article I, Section II, "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003543_137-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003543-137">[135]</a></sup></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-308"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-308">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">Under Article I, Section III, "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544_72-3" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544-72">[72]</a></sup></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-310"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-310">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">Under Article II, Section I, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003550–551_309-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003550–551-309">[301]</a></sup></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-312"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-312">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">The 22nd Amendment states, "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-314"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-314">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">Under Article I, Section II, "The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003543_137-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003543-137">[135]</a></sup></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-315"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-315">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">Under Article I, Section III, "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544_72-4" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544-72">[72]</a></sup></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-316"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-316">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">Under Article I, Section III, "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544_72-5" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544-72">[72]</a></sup></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-317"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-317">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">Under Article II, Section IV, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552_33-8" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552-33">[33]</a></sup></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-318"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-318">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">Under the Treason Clause of Article III, Section III:<link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1211633275"><blockquote class="templatequote"><p>Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.<br /><br />The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003553_61-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003553-61">[61]</a></sup></p></blockquote></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-327"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-327">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">Article III, Section II requires that "Trial of all Crimes... shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003553_61-3" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003553-61">[61]</a></sup></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-394"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-394">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">However, the text of <i>Brown v. Board of Education</i>, <i>Roe v. Wade</i>, and <i>Obergefell v. Hodges</i> make no reference to Section 1983 or the Second Enforcement Act,<sup id="cite_ref-Brown_v._Board_of_Education_387-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Brown_v._Board_of_Education-387">[371]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Roe_v._Wade_388-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Roe_v._Wade-388">[372]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Obergefell_v._Hodges_389-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Obergefell_v._Hodges-389">[373]</a></sup> and <i>Shelley v. Kraemer</i> refers only to the Enforcement Act of 1870 in a footnote that explains that Section 18 of the 1870 law reenacted the <a href="/info/en/?search=Civil_Rights_Act_of_1866" title="Civil Rights Act of 1866">Civil Rights Act of 1866</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-392" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-392">[376]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-393" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-393">[377]</a></sup></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-414"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-414">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">While the <a href="/info/en/?search=House_of_Lords_Act_1999" title="House of Lords Act 1999">House of Lords Act 1999</a> abolished hereditary membership in the <a href="/info/en/?search=House_of_Lords" title="House of Lords">House of Lords</a> for most seats, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_hereditary_peers_elected_under_the_House_of_Lords_Act_1999" title="List of hereditary peers elected under the House of Lords Act 1999">92 seats were exempted</a> for members chosen in <a href="/info/en/?search=By-elections_to_the_House_of_Lords" title="By-elections to the House of Lords">by-elections</a> and the holders of the <a href="/info/en/?search=Earl_Marshal" title="Earl Marshal">Earl Marshal</a> and <a href="/info/en/?search=Lord_Great_Chamberlain" title="Lord Great Chamberlain">Lord Great Chamberlain</a> offices being permitted to sit <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Ex_officio_member" title="Ex officio member">ex officio</a></i>, and the remaining seats are held by <a href="/info/en/?search=Life_peer" title="Life peer">life peers</a> appointed by the <a href="/info/en/?search=Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom" title="Monarchy of the United Kingdom">Crown</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-412" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-412">[395]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-413" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-413">[396]</a></sup></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-512"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-512">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">The 1860 Republican ticket was not on the ballot in 9 states: <a href="/info/en/?search=1860_United_States_presidential_election_in_Alabama" title="1860 United States presidential election in Alabama">Alabama</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=1860_United_States_presidential_election_in_Arkansas" title="1860 United States presidential election in Arkansas">Arkansas</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=1860_United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida" title="1860 United States presidential election in Florida">Florida</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=1860_United_States_presidential_election_in_Georgia" title="1860 United States presidential election in Georgia">Georgia</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=1860_United_States_presidential_election_in_Louisiana" title="1860 United States presidential election in Louisiana">Louisiana</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=1860_United_States_presidential_election_in_Mississippi" title="1860 United States presidential election in Mississippi">Mississippi</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=1860_United_States_presidential_election_in_North_Carolina" title="1860 United States presidential election in North Carolina">North Carolina</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=1860_United_States_presidential_election_in_Tennessee" title="1860 United States presidential election in Tennessee">Tennessee</a>, and <a href="/info/en/?search=1860_United_States_presidential_election_in_Texas" title="1860 United States presidential election in Texas">Texas</a>. Presidential electors in <a href="/info/en/?search=1860_United_States_presidential_election_in_South_Carolina" title="1860 United States presidential election in South Carolina">South Carolina</a> were appointed at the discretion of the South Carolina General Assembly and not on the basis of a poll.<sup id="cite_ref-510" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-510">[492]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-511" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-511">[493]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Williams_2012_p._1567_130-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Williams_2012_p._1567-130">[128]</a></sup></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-540"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-540">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">The Impeachment Clause of Article II, Section IV lists "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" as the <a href="/info/en/?search=Federal_impeachment_in_the_United_States" title="Federal impeachment in the United States">impeachable offenses</a> for President, Vice President, and the civil officers of the United States.<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003551–552_86-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003551–552-86">[84]</a></sup></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-609"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-609">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>Trump v. Benson</i> (2023), 23-000151-MZ</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-September2022-675"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-September2022_675-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-September2022_675-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"59. Given what we know about the ongoing investigations into Donald Trump, do you think he should be allowed to serve as president again in the future?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-October2022-676"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-October2022_676-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-October2022_676-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"49. Given what we know about the ongoing investigations into Donald Trump, do you think he should be allowed to serve as president again in the future?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-February2023-677"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-February2023_677-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-February2023_677-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"41. Given what we know about his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, should Donald Trump be allowed to serve as president again in the future?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Quinnipiac-March2023-679"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac-March2023_679-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac-March2023_679-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"33. As you may know, there are multiple state and federal criminal investigations of former President Donald Trump. If there are criminal charges filed against him, do you think those criminal charges should disqualify him from running for president again, or don't you think so?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Reuters-Ipsos-August2023-TM3138Y23-682"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-August2023-TM3138Y23_682-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-August2023-TM3138Y23_682-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"TM3138Y23. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statement: Donald Trump should be disqualified from running for president because of the criminal charges against him"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-CNN-SSRS-September2023-684"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-CNN-SSRS-September2023_684-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-CNN-SSRS-September2023_684-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"Q38. As you may have heard, Donald Trump is facing criminal charges in four separate cases. For each of these cases, please indicate whether you think, if true, those charges (should disqualify Trump from the presidency), (cast doubts on his fitness for the job, but are not disqualifying, or (are not relevant to his fitness for the presidency)? Charges related to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-WashingtonPost-ABCNews-September2023-686"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-WashingtonPost-ABCNews-September2023_686-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-WashingtonPost-ABCNews-September2023_686-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"16. The U.S. Constitution prohibits people who have taken an oath to the Constitution from holding public office if they have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States. Do you think Trump should or should not be prohibited from serving as president under this provision?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-MorningConsult-Politico-September2023-688"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-MorningConsult-Politico-September2023_688-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-MorningConsult-Politico-September2023_688-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"POL12. And would you say that the 14th Amendment's ban on insurrectionists and those who have aided insurrectionists from holding office disqualifies former President Donald Trump from appearing on state presidential ballots for 2024?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-NewsNation-DecisionDeskHQ-November2023-689"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-NewsNation-DecisionDeskHQ-November2023_689-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-NewsNation-DecisionDeskHQ-November2023_689-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"Question 28: Would you support or oppose states disqualifying Donald Trump from being on the ballot if he is convicted in one or more of the criminal cases against him?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-CBSNews-YouGov-January2024-Q33-690"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-CBSNews-YouGov-January2024-Q33_690-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-CBSNews-YouGov-January2024-Q33_690-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"33. Some states have removed Donald Trump's name from their election ballots, arguing he committed insurrection and is therefore ineligible to serve as president. Other states are keeping Donald Trump’s name on their ballots, arguing it is up to voters to decide if he should serve. Regardless of how you plan to vote, which do you think states should do?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-ABCNews-Ipsos-January2024-693"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-ABCNews-Ipsos-January2024_693-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">"20. It's expected that the U.S. Supreme Court will review the rulings in Colorado and Maine that ordered Trump off the ballot. What do you think the U.S. Supreme Court should do?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q27-695"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q27_695-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q27_695-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"27. Do you agree or disagree that individual states should remove Trump from their ballots under the 14th Amendment as a result of his actions regarding the Jan. 6 Capitol attack?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Reuters-Ipsos-March2023-697"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-March2023_697-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-March2023_697-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"TM2037Y21_4. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Former President Donald Trump should NOT run for president again if he is indicted in one of the ongoing investigations about him"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Reuters-Ipsos-April2023-700"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-April2023_700-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-April2023_700-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"TM3138Y23. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements: ... h. Donald Trump should be disqualified from running for president because of the criminal charges against him"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-NPR-PBSNewsHour-Marist-703"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-NPR-PBSNewsHour-Marist_703-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-NPR-PBSNewsHour-Marist_703-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-NPR-PBSNewsHour-Marist_703-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-NPR-PBSNewsHour-Marist_703-3"><sup><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"Do you want Donald Trump to be
president again? If yes: If Donald Trump is found guilty of a crime, do you still want him to be president again?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q50-704"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q50_704-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q50_704-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"50. If Donald Trump is convicted of a serious crime, do you think he should be allowed to serve as president again in the future?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Reuters-Ipsos-June_2023-706"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-June_2023_706-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-June_2023_706-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"TM3138Y23_10. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statement: Donald Trump should be disqualified from running for president because of the criminal charges against him"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q29-707"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q29_707-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q29_707-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"29. If Donald Trump is convicted of a serious crime in the coming months, do you think he should be allowed to serve as president again in the future?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-ReutersIpsosAugust2023-TM3181Y23-708"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-ReutersIpsosAugust2023-TM3181Y23_708-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-ReutersIpsosAugust2023-TM3181Y23_708-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"TM3181Y23. If all other
things were equal, would you vote for Donald Trump for president in 2024 if he is/has been… Convicted of a felony crime by a jury"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-ABCNews-Ipsos-August2023-Q5-711"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-ABCNews-Ipsos-August2023-Q5_711-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">"5. Do you think Donald Trump should or should not suspend his presidential campaign because of this indictment?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Quinnipiac-August2023-Q31-713"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac-August2023-Q31_713-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac-August2023-Q31_713-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"31. If a person is convicted of a felony, do you think they should still be eligible to be president of the United States, or not?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q39-714"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q39_714-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q39_714-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"39. If Donald Trump is convicted of a serious crime in the coming months, do you think he should be allowed to serve as president again in the future?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Reuters-Ipsos-September2023-716"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-September2023_716-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-September2023_716-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"Q3181Y23_1. If all other things were equal, would you vote for Donald Trump for president in 2024 if he is/has been - Convicted of a felony crime by a jury"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Reuters-Ipsos-December2023-720"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-December2023_720-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-December2023_720-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"Q2037Y21_4. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? - Former President Donald Trump should NOT run for president again if he is convicted in one of the criminal trials he faces"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q25-722"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q25_722-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q25_722-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"25. If Donald Trump is convicted of a serious crime in the coming months, do you think he should be allowed to serve as president again in the future?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Reuters-Ipsos-January2024-724"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-January2024_724-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-January2024_724-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"TM3181Y23_1. If all other things were equal, would you vote for Donald Trump for president in 2024 if he is/has been... Convicted of a felony crime by a jury"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Gallup-725"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Gallup_725-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Gallup_725-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be convicted of a felony crime by a jury, would you vote for that person?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q15-726"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q15_726-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q15_726-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"15. Setting aside the law — if Donald Trump is convicted of a serious crime in the coming months, do you think he SHOULD be allowed to serve as president again in the future?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48c-727"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48c_727-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48c_727-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"48. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Conspiring to overturn the results of a presidential election"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24c-728"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24c_728-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24c_728-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"24. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Conspiring to overturn the results of a presidential election"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-ABCNews-Ipsos-August2023-Q2-729"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-ABCNews-Ipsos-August2023-Q2_729-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-ABCNews-Ipsos-August2023-Q2_729-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-ABCNews-Ipsos-August2023-Q2_729-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"2. As you may know, Donald Trump has been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Do you think the charges against Donald Trump in this case are: Very serious; Somewhat serious; Not too serious; Not serious at all"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32-730"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32_730-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32_730-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32_730-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32_730-3"><sup><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32_730-4"><sup><i><b>e</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac-August2023-Q32_730-5"><sup><i><b>f</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"32. How serious do you think the federal criminal charges accusing former President Trump of attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election are; very serious, somewhat serious, not too serious, or not serious at all?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q29c-731"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q29c_731-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q29c_731-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"29. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Conspiring to overturn the results of a presidential election"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Quinnipiac-September2023-733"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac-September2023_733-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac-September2023_733-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac-September2023_733-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac-September2023_733-3"><sup><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac-September2023_733-4"><sup><i><b>e</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac-September2023_733-5"><sup><i><b>f</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"39. Are the charges of attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, including his actions around the time of the storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021; very serious, somewhat serious, not too serious, or not serious at all?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q24c-734"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q24c_734-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q24c_734-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"24. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Conspiring to overturn the results of a presidential election"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YouGov-December2023-Q4-735"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YouGov-December2023-Q4_735-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YouGov-December2023-Q4_735-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YouGov-December2023-Q4_735-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YouGov-December2023-Q4_735-3"><sup><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"4. How serious are the following cases against Donald Trump? Federal election and Jan. 6 case: 4 charges, including for efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to obstruct the certification of the electoral vote."</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q12-736"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q12_736-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q12_736-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q12_736-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q12_736-3"><sup><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"12. And which of the following things would make someone unfit for the presidency if they were convicted of it? Please select all that apply."</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YouGov-January2024-Q5-737"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YouGov-January2024-Q5_737-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YouGov-January2024-Q5_737-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YouGov-January2024-Q5_737-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YouGov-January2024-Q5_737-3"><sup><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"5. How serious are the following cases against Donald Trump? Federal election and Jan. 6 case: 4 charges, including for efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to obstruct the certification of the electoral vote."</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48d-738"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48d_738-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48d_738-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"48. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Attempting to obstruct the certification of a presidential election"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24d-739"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24d_739-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24d_739-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"24. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Attempting to obstruct the certification of a presidential election"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q29d-740"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q29d_740-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-Q29d_740-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"29. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Attempting to obstruct the certification of a presidential election"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q24d-741"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q24d_741-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q24d_741-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"24. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Attempting to obstruct the certification of a presidential election"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48e-742"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48e_742-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-May2023-Q48e_742-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"48. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Inciting or aiding an insurrection against the federal government"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24e-743"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24e_743-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-July2023-Q24e_743-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"24. Do you consider the following to be a serious crime? Inciting or aiding an insurrection against the federal government"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Reuters-Ipsos-August2022-745"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-August2022_745-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Reuters-Ipsos-August2022_745-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"TM3037Y22. Which of the following best describes what you think happened on January 6th, 2021, when many people entered the U.S. Capitol building, even if neither is exactly right?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-August2023-746"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-August2023_746-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-August2023_746-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"26. Do you believe the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was justified or not justified?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-747"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024_747-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024_747-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"6. Do you approve or disapprove of the Trump supporters taking over the Capitol building in Washington, D.C.,
on January 6, 2021, to stop Congressional proceedings?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-CBSNews-YouGov-January2024-Q23-748"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-CBSNews-YouGov-January2024-Q23_748-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-CBSNews-YouGov-January2024-Q23_748-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"23. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the actions taken by the people who forced their way into the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q22-749"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q22_749-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q22_749-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"22. Do you believe the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was justified or unjustified?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Politico-Ipsos-August2023-752"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Politico-Ipsos-August2023_752-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Politico-Ipsos-August2023_752-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"Q3. Should the federal trial on Donald Trump’s 2020 election subversion case take place before the 2024 presidential election in November 2024?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q28-753"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q28_753-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-December2023-Q28_753-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"28. Do you think Trump's trials should take place before or after the 2024 general election?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YouGov-December2023-Q8-754"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YouGov-December2023-Q8_754-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YouGov-December2023-Q8_754-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"8. When do you think trials for the following cases should begin? Federal election and Jan. 6 case: 4 charges, including for efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to obstruct the certification of the electoral vote."</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q17-755"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q17_755-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YahooNews-YouGov-January2024-Q17_755-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"17. Do you think Trump's trials should take place before or after the 2024 general election?"</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-YouGov-January2024-Q9-756"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-YouGov-January2024-Q9_756-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-YouGov-January2024-Q9_756-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">"9. When do you think trials for the following cases should begin? Federal election and Jan. 6 case: 4 charges, including for efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to obstruct the certification of the electoral vote."</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-758"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-758">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">"Which statement comes closer to your view on what should happen if Donald Trump wins the most votes in the Republican primary and is then convicted of a crime? Donald Trump should/should NOT be the Republican nominee"</span>
</li>
</ol></div></div>
<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="References">References</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=34" title="Edit section: References"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2>
<link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1217336898"><div class="reflist">
<div class="mw-references-wrap mw-references-columns"><ol class="references">
<li id="cite_note-1"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-1">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_v._Anderson" title="Trump v. Anderson">Trump v. Anderson</a></i>, No. <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/601/23-719/">23-719</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_601" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 601">601</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> ___ (2024)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-2"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-2">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r1215172403">.mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit;word-wrap:break-word}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:"\"""\"""'""'"}.mw-parser-output .citation:target{background-color:rgba(0,127,255,0.133)}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-free.id-lock-free a{background:url("https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Lock-green.svg")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat}body:not(.skin-timeless):not(.skin-minerva) .mw-parser-output .id-lock-free a{background-size:contain}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-limited.id-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .id-lock-registration.id-lock-registration a{background:url("https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat}body:not(.skin-timeless):not(.skin-minerva) .mw-parser-output .id-lock-limited a,body:not(.skin-timeless):not(.skin-minerva) .mw-parser-output .id-lock-registration a{background-size:contain}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-subscription.id-lock-subscription a{background:url("https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat}body:not(.skin-timeless):not(.skin-minerva) .mw-parser-output .id-lock-subscription a{background-size:contain}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url("https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg")right 0.1em center/12px no-repeat}body:not(.skin-timeless):not(.skin-minerva) .mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background-size:contain}.mw-parser-output .cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:none;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;color:#d33}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{color:#d33}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#2C882D;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right{padding-right:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .citation .mw-selflink{font-weight:inherit}html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{color:#18911F}html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error,html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{color:#f8a397}@media(prefers-color-scheme:dark){html.skin-theme-clientpref-os .mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error,html.skin-theme-clientpref-os .mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{color:#f8a397}html.skin-theme-clientpref-os .mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{color:#18911F}}</style><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/illinois-judge-rules-trump-removed-republican-primary-ballot-jan-6-rio-rcna141065">"Illinois judge rules Trump ineligible for Republican primary ballot over Jan. 6 riot"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=NBC_News" title="NBC News">NBC News</a></i>. February 28, 2024.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=NBC+News&rft.atitle=Illinois+judge+rules+Trump+ineligible+for+Republican+primary+ballot+over+Jan.+6+riot&rft.date=2024-02-28&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fpolitics%2F2024-election%2Fillinois-judge-rules-trump-removed-republican-primary-ballot-jan-6-rio-rcna141065&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-politicoMarch4-3"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-politicoMarch4_3-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-politicoMarch4_3-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation news cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/04/states-cant-remove-trump-from-ballot-supreme-court-says-00144673">"States can't kick Trump off ballot, Supreme Court says"</a>. Politico. March 4, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">March 4,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=States+can%E2%80%99t+kick+Trump+off+ballot%2C+Supreme+Court+says&rft.date=2024-03-04&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fnews%2F2024%2F03%2F04%2Fstates-cant-remove-trump-from-ballot-supreme-court-says-00144673&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-4"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-4">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFBogel-BurroughsSmith2024" class="citation news cs1">Bogel-Burroughs, Nicholas; Smith, Mitch (January 3, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.nytimes.com/article/trump-ballot-remove-2024.html">"What to Know About the Efforts to Remove Trump From the 2024 Ballot"</a>. <i>The New York Times</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240104012812/https://www.nytimes.com/article/trump-ballot-remove-2024.html">Archived</a> from the original on January 4, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 4,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+New+York+Times&rft.atitle=What+to+Know+About+the+Efforts+to+Remove+Trump+From+the+2024+Ballot&rft.date=2024-01-03&rft.aulast=Bogel-Burroughs&rft.aufirst=Nicholas&rft.au=Smith%2C+Mitch&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2Farticle%2Ftrump-ballot-remove-2024.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-5"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-5">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFGamioSmith2024" class="citation news cs1">Gamio, Lazaro; Smith, Mitch (January 4, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/02/us/politics/trump-ballot-removal-map.html">"Tracking Efforts to Remove Trump From the 2024 Ballot"</a>. <i>The New York Times</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240103232038/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/02/us/politics/trump-ballot-removal-map.html">Archived</a> from the original on January 3, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 4,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+New+York+Times&rft.atitle=Tracking+Efforts+to+Remove+Trump+From+the+2024+Ballot&rft.date=2024-01-04&rft.aulast=Gamio&rft.aufirst=Lazaro&rft.au=Smith%2C+Mitch&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2Finteractive%2F2024%2F01%2F02%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-ballot-removal-map.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-6"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-6">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFHurley2024" class="citation news cs1">Hurley, Lawrence (January 5, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-agrees-weigh-whether-trump-can-kicked-ballot-colorado-rcna132058">"Supreme Court agrees to weigh whether Trump can be kicked off ballot in Colorado"</a>. NBC News. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240105220842/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-agrees-weigh-whether-trump-can-kicked-ballot-colorado-rcna132058">Archived</a> from the original on January 5, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 5,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Supreme+Court+agrees+to+weigh+whether+Trump+can+be+kicked+off+ballot+in+Colorado&rft.date=2024-01-05&rft.aulast=Hurley&rft.aufirst=Lawrence&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fpolitics%2Fsupreme-court%2Fsupreme-court-agrees-weigh-whether-trump-can-kicked-ballot-colorado-rcna132058&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-reutersfeb8-7"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-reutersfeb8_7-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-reutersfeb8_7-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFChungKruzel2024" class="citation web cs1">Chung, Andrew; Kruzel, John (February 8, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-brings-fight-stay-ballot-us-supreme-court-2024-02-08/">"US Supreme Court justices grill Trump lawyer over ballot disqualification"</a>. <i>Reuters</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">March 4,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Reuters&rft.atitle=US+Supreme+Court+justices+grill+Trump+lawyer+over+ballot+disqualification&rft.date=2024-02-08&rft.aulast=Chung&rft.aufirst=Andrew&rft.au=Kruzel%2C+John&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Flegal%2Ftrump-brings-fight-stay-ballot-us-supreme-court-2024-02-08%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-8"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-8">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFSherman2024" class="citation news cs1">Sherman, Mark (March 4, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-insurrection-election-colorado-51e79c0f03013034c8a042cb278b6446">"Supreme Court restores Trump to ballot, rejecting state attempts to ban him over Capitol attack"</a>. Associated Press<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">March 4,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Supreme+Court+restores+Trump+to+ballot%2C+rejecting+state+attempts+to+ban+him+over+Capitol+attack&rft.date=2024-03-04&rft.aulast=Sherman&rft.aufirst=Mark&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fapnews.com%2Farticle%2Fsupreme-court-trump-insurrection-election-colorado-51e79c0f03013034c8a042cb278b6446&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Threat-9"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-Threat_9-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r1126788409">.mw-parser-output .plainlist ol,.mw-parser-output .plainlist ul{line-height:inherit;list-style:none;margin:0;padding:0}.mw-parser-output .plainlist ol li,.mw-parser-output .plainlist ul li{margin-bottom:0}</style><div class="plainlist" style="display:inline;"><ul style="display:inline;"><li style="margin-bottom:.5em; display:block;;display:inline; margin:0;"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFBacon2023" class="citation news cs1">Bacon, Perry Jr (December 30, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/29/trump-ballot-maine-colorado/">"Yes, Trump should be removed from the ballot"</a>. <i>Washington Post</i>. <a href="/info/en/?search=ISSN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISSN (identifier)">ISSN</a> <a class="external text" href="https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0190-8286">0190-8286</a>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231230072048/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/29/trump-ballot-maine-colorado/">Archived</a> from the original on December 30, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 30,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Washington+Post&rft.atitle=Yes%2C+Trump+should+be+removed+from+the+ballot&rft.date=2023-12-30&rft.issn=0190-8286&rft.aulast=Bacon&rft.aufirst=Perry+Jr&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fopinions%2F2023%2F12%2F29%2Ftrump-ballot-maine-colorado%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li><li style="margin-bottom:.5em; display:block;;margin-top:.5em;"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFYoung2023" class="citation web cs1">Young, Quentin (November 30, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/11/30/the-time-to-reject-autocracy-is-now/">"The time to reject autocracy is now"</a>. <i>Colorado Newsline</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231231044552/https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/11/30/the-time-to-reject-autocracy-is-now/">Archived</a> from the original on December 31, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 31,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Colorado+Newsline&rft.atitle=The+time+to+reject+autocracy+is+now&rft.date=2023-11-30&rft.aulast=Young&rft.aufirst=Quentin&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcoloradonewsline.com%2F2023%2F11%2F30%2Fthe-time-to-reject-autocracy-is-now%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li><li style="margin-bottom:.5em; display:block;"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFGraber2023" class="citation web cs1">Graber, Mark A. (November 29, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/opinion/trump-president-candidate-constitution.html">"Donald Trump and the Jefferson Davis Problem"</a>. <i>The New York Times</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231231045727/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/opinion/trump-president-candidate-constitution.html">Archived</a> from the original on December 31, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 31,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=The+New+York+Times&rft.atitle=Donald+Trump+and+the+Jefferson+Davis+Problem&rft.date=2023-11-29&rft.aulast=Graber&rft.aufirst=Mark+A.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2023%2F11%2F29%2Fopinion%2Ftrump-president-candidate-constitution.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li><li style="margin-bottom:.5em; display:block;"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFSomin2023" class="citation web cs1">Somin, Ilya (December 1, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.cato.org/commentary/yes-trump-disqualified-office">"Yes, Trump Is Disqualified from Office"</a>. <i>CATO Institute</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231231060837/https://www.cato.org/commentary/yes-trump-disqualified-office">Archived</a> from the original on December 31, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 31,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=CATO+Institute&rft.atitle=Yes%2C+Trump+Is+Disqualified+from+Office&rft.date=2023-12-01&rft.aulast=Somin&rft.aufirst=Ilya&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cato.org%2Fcommentary%2Fyes-trump-disqualified-office&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li><li style="margin-bottom:.5em; display:block;"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFKahn2023" class="citation web cs1">Kahn, Paul W. (December 29, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4381899-progressives-need-to-get-real-about-trump-democracy-and-the-supreme-court/">"Progressives need to get real about Trump, democracy and the Supreme Court"</a>. <i>The Hill</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231231062852/https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4381899-progressives-need-to-get-real-about-trump-democracy-and-the-supreme-court/">Archived</a> from the original on December 31, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 31,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=The+Hill&rft.atitle=Progressives+need+to+get+real+about+Trump%2C+democracy+and+the+Supreme+Court&rft.date=2023-12-29&rft.aulast=Kahn&rft.aufirst=Paul+W.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fopinion%2Fjudiciary%2F4381899-progressives-need-to-get-real-about-trump-democracy-and-the-supreme-court%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li><li style="margin-bottom:.5em; display:block;"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFZirin2024" class="citation web cs1">Zirin, James D. (January 2, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4384285-will-trumps-disqualification-case-be-bush-v-gore-for-2024/">"Will Trump's disqualification case be Bush v. Gore for 2024?"</a>. <i>The Hill</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240102155254/https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4384285-will-trumps-disqualification-case-be-bush-v-gore-for-2024/">Archived</a> from the original on January 2, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 3,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=The+Hill&rft.atitle=Will+Trump%27s+disqualification+case+be+Bush+v.+Gore+for+2024%3F&rft.date=2024-01-02&rft.aulast=Zirin&rft.aufirst=James+D.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fopinion%2Fjudiciary%2F4384285-will-trumps-disqualification-case-be-bush-v-gore-for-2024%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li><li style="margin-bottom:.5em; display:block;"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLuttigTribe2023" class="citation web cs1">Luttig, J. Michael; Tribe, Laurence H. (August 19, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/">"The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again"</a>. <i>The Atlantic</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://archive.today/20230820122539/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/">Archived</a> from the original on August 20, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 4,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=The+Atlantic&rft.atitle=The+Constitution+Prohibits+Trump+From+Ever+Being+President+Again&rft.date=2023-08-19&rft.aulast=Luttig&rft.aufirst=J.+Michael&rft.au=Tribe%2C+Laurence+H.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fideas%2Farchive%2F2023%2F08%2Fdonald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency%2F675048%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li><li style="margin-bottom:.5em; display:block;"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFFrench2024" class="citation web cs1">French, David (January 4, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/04/opinion/the-case-for-disqualifying-trump-is-strong.html">"The Case for Disqualifying Trump Is Strong"</a>. <i>The New York Times</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240105010605/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/04/opinion/the-case-for-disqualifying-trump-is-strong.html">Archived</a> from the original on January 5, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 5,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=The+New+York+Times&rft.atitle=The+Case+for+Disqualifying+Trump+Is+Strong&rft.date=2024-01-04&rft.aulast=French&rft.aufirst=David&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F01%2F04%2Fopinion%2Fthe-case-for-disqualifying-trump-is-strong.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li></ul></div></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-10"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-10">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/colorado-supreme-court-donald-trump-ballot-2024-fourteenth-amendment-083b1271">"The Folly of Colorado's Trump Disqualification"</a>. <i>The Wall Street Journal</i>. December 20, 2023. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240109075234/https://www.wsj.com/articles/colorado-supreme-court-donald-trump-ballot-2024-fourteenth-amendment-083b1271">Archived</a> from the original on January 9, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 9,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=The+Wall+Street+Journal&rft.atitle=The+Folly+of+Colorado%27s+Trump+Disqualification&rft.date=2023-12-20&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fcolorado-supreme-court-donald-trump-ballot-2024-fourteenth-amendment-083b1271&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-11"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-11">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFRubenfeld2024" class="citation web cs1">Rubenfeld, Jed (January 4, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-solution-to-the-trump-ballot-conundrum-griffin-colorado-us-supreme-court-6d6b64ef">"A Solution to the Trump Ballot Conundrum"</a>. <i>The Wall Street Journal</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240109075234/https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-solution-to-the-trump-ballot-conundrum-griffin-colorado-us-supreme-court-6d6b64ef">Archived</a> from the original on January 9, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 9,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=The+Wall+Street+Journal&rft.atitle=A+Solution+to+the+Trump+Ballot+Conundrum&rft.date=2024-01-04&rft.aulast=Rubenfeld&rft.aufirst=Jed&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fa-solution-to-the-trump-ballot-conundrum-griffin-colorado-us-supreme-court-6d6b64ef&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-:0-12"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-:0_12-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-:0_12-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-:0_12-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFElena2023" class="citation web cs1">Elena, Maria (December 30, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/12/30/metro/shenna-bellows-maine-home-targeted-by-swatters/">"Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows' home targeted with swatting call"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=The_Boston_Globe" title="The Boston Globe">The Boston Globe</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231230221518/https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/12/30/metro/shenna-bellows-maine-home-targeted-by-swatters/">Archived</a> from the original on December 30, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 30,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=The+Boston+Globe&rft.atitle=Maine+Secretary+of+State+Shenna+Bellows%27+home+targeted+with+swatting+call&rft.date=2023-12-30&rft.aulast=Elena&rft.aufirst=Maria&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bostonglobe.com%2F2023%2F12%2F30%2Fmetro%2Fshenna-bellows-maine-home-targeted-by-swatters%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-13"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-13">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLee2024" class="citation news cs1">Lee, Dave (January 4, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-01-04/us-must-stop-swatting-from-becoming-a-deadly-election-weapon">"US Must Stop 'Swatting' From Becoming an Election Weapon"</a>. <i>Bloomberg.com</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240104125150/https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-01-04/us-must-stop-swatting-from-becoming-a-deadly-election-weapon">Archived</a> from the original on January 4, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 5,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Bloomberg.com&rft.atitle=US+Must+Stop+%27Swatting%27+From+Becoming+an+Election+Weapon&rft.date=2024-01-04&rft.aulast=Lee&rft.aufirst=Dave&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bloomberg.com%2Fopinion%2Farticles%2F2024-01-04%2Fus-must-stop-swatting-from-becoming-a-deadly-election-weapon&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-3CNN-14"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-3CNN_14-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-3CNN_14-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFWolf2021" class="citation news cs1">Wolf, Zachary B. (January 12, 2021). <a class="external text" href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/politics/14th-amendment-explainer/index.html">"What's the 14th Amendment and how does it work?"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=CNN" title="CNN">CNN</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210112120617/https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/politics/14th-amendment-explainer/index.html">Archived</a> from the original on January 12, 2021<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">February 15,</span> 2021</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=CNN&rft.atitle=What%27s+the+14th+Amendment+and+how+does+it+work%3F&rft.date=2021-01-12&rft.aulast=Wolf&rft.aufirst=Zachary+B.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2021%2F01%2F11%2Fpolitics%2F14th-amendment-explainer%2Findex.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-15"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-15">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFWolfe2021" class="citation news cs1">Wolfe, Jan (January 14, 2021). <a class="external text" href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-explainer/explainer-impeachment-or-the-14th-amendment-can-trump-be-barred-from-future-office-idUSKBN29I356">"Explainer: Impeachment or the 14th Amendment – Can Trump be barred from future office?"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Reuters" title="Reuters">Reuters</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210129190855/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-explainer/explainer-impeachment-or-the-14th-amendment-can-trump-be-barred-from-future-office-idUSKBN29I356">Archived</a> from the original on January 29, 2021<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">November 18,</span> 2022</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Reuters&rft.atitle=Explainer%3A+Impeachment+or+the+14th+Amendment+%E2%80%93+Can+Trump+be+barred+from+future+office%3F&rft.date=2021-01-14&rft.aulast=Wolfe&rft.aufirst=Jan&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2Fus-usa-trump-impeachment-explainer%2Fexplainer-impeachment-or-the-14th-amendment-can-trump-be-barred-from-future-office-idUSKBN29I356&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-16"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-16">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFWeiss2021" class="citation magazine cs1">Weiss, Debra Cassens (January 12, 2021). <a class="external text" href="https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/could-the-14th-amendment-be-used-to-disqualify-trump-from-office">"Could the 14th Amendment be used to disqualify Trump from office?"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=ABA_Journal" title="ABA Journal">ABA Journal</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210205021635/https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/could-the-14th-amendment-be-used-to-disqualify-trump-from-office">Archived</a> from the original on February 5, 2021<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">February 15,</span> 2021</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=ABA+Journal&rft.atitle=Could+the+14th+Amendment+be+used+to+disqualify+Trump+from+office%3F&rft.date=2021-01-12&rft.aulast=Weiss&rft.aufirst=Debra+Cassens&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.abajournal.com%2Fnews%2Farticle%2Fcould-the-14th-amendment-be-used-to-disqualify-trump-from-office&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-17"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-17">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFParks2021" class="citation news cs1">Parks, MaryAlice (January 12, 2021). <a class="external text" href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrats-cite-rarely-part-constitution-impeachment-article/story?id=75177543">"Democrats cite rarely used part of 14th Amendment in new impeachment article"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=ABC_News" title="ABC News">ABC News</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210213212053/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrats-cite-rarely-part-constitution-impeachment-article/story?id=75177543">Archived</a> from the original on February 13, 2021<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">February 15,</span> 2021</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=ABC+News&rft.atitle=Democrats+cite+rarely+used+part+of+14th+Amendment+in+new+impeachment+article&rft.date=2021-01-12&rft.aulast=Parks&rft.aufirst=MaryAlice&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FPolitics%2Fdemocrats-cite-rarely-part-constitution-impeachment-article%2Fstory%3Fid%3D75177543&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-18"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-18">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation journal cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2021-01-13/pdf/CREC-2021-01-13.pdf">"House of Representatives"</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Congressional_Record" title="Congressional Record">Congressional Record</a></i>. <b>167</b> (8): H191. January 13, 2021. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231230180441/https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2021-01-13/pdf/CREC-2021-01-13.pdf">Archived</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span> from the original on December 30, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 30,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Congressional+Record&rft.atitle=House+of+Representatives&rft.volume=167&rft.issue=8&rft.pages=H191&rft.date=2021-01-13&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.govinfo.gov%2Fcontent%2Fpkg%2FCREC-2021-01-13%2Fpdf%2FCREC-2021-01-13.pdf&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-19"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-19">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation journal cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2021-02-13/pdf/CREC-2021-02-13.pdf">"Senate"</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Congressional_Record" title="Congressional Record">Congressional Record</a></i>. <b>167</b> (28): S733. February 13, 2021. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210220161203/https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2021-02-13/pdf/CREC-2021-02-13.pdf">Archived</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span> from the original on February 20, 2021<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 23,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Congressional+Record&rft.atitle=Senate&rft.volume=167&rft.issue=28&rft.pages=S733&rft.date=2021-02-13&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.govinfo.gov%2Fcontent%2Fpkg%2FCREC-2021-02-13%2Fpdf%2FCREC-2021-02-13.pdf&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-20"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-20">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFThrushBroadwater2022" class="citation news cs1">Thrush, Glenn; Broadwater, Luke (May 17, 2022). <a class="external text" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/us/politics/jan-6-committee-transcripts.html">"Justice Dept. Is Said to Request Transcripts From Jan. 6 Committee"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=The_New_York_Times" title="The New York Times">The New York Times</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20220521223909/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/us/politics/jan-6-committee-transcripts.html">Archived</a> from the original on May 21, 2022<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 20,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+New+York+Times&rft.atitle=Justice+Dept.+Is+Said+to+Request+Transcripts+From+Jan.+6+Committee&rft.date=2022-05-17&rft.aulast=Thrush&rft.aufirst=Glenn&rft.au=Broadwater%2C+Luke&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2022%2F05%2F17%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fjan-6-committee-transcripts.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-21"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-21">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20221021174523/https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/20221021%20J6%20Cmte%20Subpeona%20to%20Donald%20Trump.pdf">"Letter from Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman, and Liz Cheney, Vice Chair, to President Donald J. Trump"</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span>. October 21, 2022. Archived from <a class="external text" href="https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/20221021%20J6%20Cmte%20Subpeona%20to%20Donald%20Trump.pdf">the original</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span> on October 21, 2022.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Letter+from+Bennie+G.+Thompson%2C+Chairman%2C+and+Liz+Cheney%2C+Vice+Chair%2C+to+President+Donald+J.+Trump&rft.date=2022-10-21&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fjanuary6th.house.gov%2Fsites%2Fdemocrats.january6th.house.gov%2Ffiles%2F20221021%2520J6%2520Cmte%2520Subpeona%2520to%2520Donald%2520Trump.pdf&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-CNN_8-5-2021-22"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-CNN_8-5-2021_22-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-CNN_8-5-2021_22-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFVazquezJudd2021" class="citation news cs1">Vazquez, Maegan; Judd, Donald (August 5, 2021). <a class="external text" href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/politics/joe-biden-capitol-police-officers-award/index.html">"Biden signs bill to award Congressional Gold Medal to police who responded to insurrection"</a>. <i>CNN</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231230180441/https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/politics/joe-biden-capitol-police-officers-award/index.html">Archived</a> from the original on December 30, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 25,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=CNN&rft.atitle=Biden+signs+bill+to+award+Congressional+Gold+Medal+to+police+who+responded+to+insurrection&rft.date=2021-08-05&rft.aulast=Vazquez&rft.aufirst=Maegan&rft.au=Judd%2C+Donald&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2021%2F08%2F05%2Fpolitics%2Fjoe-biden-capitol-police-officers-award%2Findex.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-USPL_117-32-23"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-USPL_117-32_23-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-USPL_117-32_23-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="/info/en/?search=Public_Law_(United_States)" class="mw-redirect" title="Public Law (United States)"><abbr title="Public Law (United States)">Pub. L.</abbr></a><span class="sr-only" style="border: 0; clip: rect(0, 0, 0, 0); clip-path: polygon(0px 0px, 0px 0px, 0px 0px); height: 1px; margin: -1px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0; position: absolute; width: 1px; white-space: nowrap;">Tooltip Public Law (United States)</span> <a class="external text" href="https://www.govinfo.gov/link/plaw/117/public/32?link-type=html">117–32 (text)</a> <a class="external text" href="https://www.govinfo.gov/link/plaw/117/public/32?link-type=pdf&.pdf">(PDF)</a>, 135 <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Statutes_at_Large" title="United States Statutes at Large">Stat.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://legislink.org/us/stat-135-322">322</a></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-24"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-24">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFCillizza2021" class="citation news cs1">Cillizza, Chris (June 16, 2021). <a class="external text" href="https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/16/politics/gold-medal-january-6-insurrection/index.html">"Why did 21 Republicans oppose honoring those who served on January 6?"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=CNN" title="CNN">CNN</a></i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 15,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=CNN&rft.atitle=Why+did+21+Republicans+oppose+honoring+those+who+served+on+January+6%3F&rft.date=2021-06-16&rft.aulast=Cillizza&rft.aufirst=Chris&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F2021%2F06%2F16%2Fpolitics%2Fgold-medal-january-6-insurrection%2Findex.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-25"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-25">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFSonmez2021" class="citation news cs1">Sonmez, Felicia (June 15, 2021). <a class="external text" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/21-house-republicans-vote-against-awarding-congressional-gold-medal-to-all-police-officers-who-responded-on-jan-6/2021/06/15/1fd17ac2-ce25-11eb-8cd2-4e95230cfac2_story.html">"21 House Republicans vote against awarding Congressional Gold Medal to all police officers who responded on Jan. 6"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=The_Washington_Post" title="The Washington Post">The Washington Post</a></i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 15,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Washington+Post&rft.atitle=21+House+Republicans+vote+against+awarding+Congressional+Gold+Medal+to+all+police+officers+who+responded+on+Jan.+6&rft.date=2021-06-15&rft.aulast=Sonmez&rft.aufirst=Felicia&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fpolitics%2F21-house-republicans-vote-against-awarding-congressional-gold-medal-to-all-police-officers-who-responded-on-jan-6%2F2021%2F06%2F15%2F1fd17ac2-ce25-11eb-8cd2-4e95230cfac2_story.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-26"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-26">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMarcos2021" class="citation news cs1">Marcos, Cristina (June 15, 2021). <a class="external text" href="https://thehill.com/homenews/house/558620-21-republicans-vote-against-awarding-medals-to-police-who-defended-capitol-on/">"21 Republicans vote against awarding medals to police who defended Capitol"</a>. <i>The Hill</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 15,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Hill&rft.atitle=21+Republicans+vote+against+awarding+medals+to+police+who+defended+Capitol&rft.date=2021-06-15&rft.aulast=Marcos&rft.aufirst=Cristina&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fhomenews%2Fhouse%2F558620-21-republicans-vote-against-awarding-medals-to-police-who-defended-capitol-on%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-27"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-27">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFPapenfuss2022" class="citation web cs1">Papenfuss, Mary (December 16, 2022). <a class="external text" href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/david-cicilline-bill-bar-trump-presidency-jan-6-insurrection_n_639bf0d2e4b0f4895ada049a">"41 House Democrats Introduce Bill To Bar 'Insurrectionist' Trump From Presidency"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=HuffPost" title="HuffPost">HuffPost</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230501142137/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/david-cicilline-bill-bar-trump-presidency-jan-6-insurrection_n_639bf0d2e4b0f4895ada049a">Archived</a> from the original on May 1, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 20,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=HuffPost&rft.atitle=41+House+Democrats+Introduce+Bill+To+Bar+%27Insurrectionist%27+Trump+From+Presidency&rft.date=2022-12-16&rft.aulast=Papenfuss&rft.aufirst=Mary&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Fdavid-cicilline-bill-bar-trump-presidency-jan-6-insurrection_n_639bf0d2e4b0f4895ada049a&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-28"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-28">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230601073857/https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/cicilline.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/cicilline_14th-amd-bill_text.pdf">"A Bill To provide that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to again hold the office of President of the United States or to hold any office, civil or military, under the United States"</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span>. November 22, 2022. Archived from <a class="external text" href="https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/cicilline.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/cicilline_14th-amd-bill_text.pdf">the original</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span> on June 1, 2023.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=A+Bill+To+provide+that+Donald+J.+Trump+is+ineligible+to+again+hold+the+office+of+President+of+the+United+States+or+to+hold+any+office%2C+civil+or+military%2C+under+the+United+States&rft.date=2022-11-22&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcicilline.house.gov%2Fsites%2Fevo-subsites%2Fcicilline.house.gov%2Ffiles%2Fevo-media-document%2Fcicilline_14th-amd-bill_text.pdf&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span>, H.R. 9578, 117th Cong. (December 15, 2022). See <a class="external text" href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/9578">here</a> <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230712013546/https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/9578">Archived</a> July 12, 2023, at the <a href="/info/en/?search=Wayback_Machine" title="Wayback Machine">Wayback Machine</a> for more information.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-29"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-29">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/9578">"H.R.9578 – To provide that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to again hold the Office of President of the United States or to hold any office, civil or military, under the United States"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=117th_United_States_Congress" title="117th United States Congress">117th United States Congress</a></i>. December 15, 2022. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230712013546/https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/9578">Archived</a> from the original on July 12, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 20,</span> 2023</span> – via congress.gov.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=117th+United+States+Congress&rft.atitle=H.R.9578+%E2%80%93+To+provide+that+Donald+J.+Trump+is+ineligible+to+again+hold+the+Office+of+President+of+the+United+States+or+to+hold+any+office%2C+civil+or+military%2C+under+the+United+States.&rft.date=2022-12-15&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.congress.gov%2Fbill%2F117th-congress%2Fhouse-bill%2F9578&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-30"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-30">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation news cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/Report_FinalReport_Jan6SelectCommittee.pdf">"Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol – December 00, 2022 – 117th Congress Second Session – House Report 117-000"</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span>. <i>United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack</i>. December 22, 2022. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20221223025524/https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/Report_FinalReport_Jan6SelectCommittee.pdf">Archived</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span> from the original on December 23, 2022<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 22,</span> 2022</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=United+States+House+Select+Committee+on+the+January+6+Attack&rft.atitle=Final+Report+of+the+Select+Committee+to+Investigate+the+January+6th+Attack+on+the+United+States+Capitol+%E2%80%93+December+00%2C+2022+%E2%80%93+117th+Congress+Second+Session+%E2%80%93+House+Report+117-000&rft.date=2022-12-22&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fjanuary6th.house.gov%2Fsites%2Fdemocrats.january6th.house.gov%2Ffiles%2FReport_FinalReport_Jan6SelectCommittee.pdf&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-31"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-31">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFBroadwater2022" class="citation news cs1">Broadwater, Luke (December 22, 2022). <a class="external text" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/22/us/politics/jan-6-committee-report.html">"Jan. 6 Panel Issues Final Report on Effort to Overturn 2020 Election – "Our democratic institutions are only as strong as the commitment of those who are entrusted with their care," Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote in a forward to the report"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=The_New_York_Times" title="The New York Times">The New York Times</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20221223030025/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/22/us/politics/jan-6-committee-report.html">Archived</a> from the original on December 23, 2022<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 22,</span> 2022</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+New+York+Times&rft.atitle=Jan.+6+Panel+Issues+Final+Report+on+Effort+to+Overturn+2020+Election+%E2%80%93+%22Our+democratic+institutions+are+only+as+strong+as+the+commitment+of+those+who+are+entrusted+with+their+care%2C%22+Speaker+Nancy+Pelosi+wrote+in+a+forward+to+the+report.&rft.date=2022-12-22&rft.aulast=Broadwater&rft.aufirst=Luke&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2022%2F12%2F22%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fjan-6-committee-report.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-32"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-32">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFSangalHammondChowdhuryVogt2022" class="citation web cs1">Sangal, Aditi; Hammond, Elise; Chowdhury, Maureen; Vogt, Adrienne (December 21, 2022). <a class="external text" href="https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/jan-6-committee-final-report/h_ef7fa8b2c6709beeae957f9db89828ea">"House Jan. 6 committee report delayed and anticipated to be released Thursday"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=CNN" title="CNN">CNN</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230712012438/https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/jan-6-committee-final-report/h_ef7fa8b2c6709beeae957f9db89828ea">Archived</a> from the original on July 12, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 21,</span> 2022</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=CNN&rft.atitle=House+Jan.+6+committee+report+delayed+and+anticipated+to+be+released+Thursday&rft.date=2022-12-21&rft.aulast=Sangal&rft.aufirst=Aditi&rft.au=Hammond%2C+Elise&rft.au=Chowdhury%2C+Maureen&rft.au=Vogt%2C+Adrienne&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2Fpolitics%2Flive-news%2Fjan-6-committee-final-report%2Fh_ef7fa8b2c6709beeae957f9db89828ea&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552-33"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552_33-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552_33-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552_33-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552_33-3"><sup><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552_33-4"><sup><i><b>e</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552_33-5"><sup><i><b>f</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552_33-6"><sup><i><b>g</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552_33-7"><sup><i><b>h</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552_33-8"><sup><i><b>i</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552_33-9"><sup><i><b>j</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, p. 552.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-House_January_6_Committee_pp._4–7-34"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-House_January_6_Committee_pp._4–7_34-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-House_January_6_Committee_pp._4–7_34-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation report cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/pdf/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf">Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span> (Report). <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Government_Publishing_Office" title="United States Government Publishing Office">U.S. Government Publishing Office</a>. December 22, 2022. pp. 4–7. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230729165626/https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/pdf/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf">Archived</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span> from the original on July 29, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">July 7,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Final+Report+of+the+Select+Committee+to+Investigate+the+January+6th+Attack+on+the+United+States+Capitol&rft.pages=4-7&rft.pub=U.S.+Government+Publishing+Office&rft.date=2022-12-22&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.govinfo.gov%2Fcontent%2Fpkg%2FGPO-J6-REPORT%2Fpdf%2FGPO-J6-REPORT.pdf&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span><span class="noviewer" typeof="mw:File"><span><img alt="Public Domain" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/62/PD-icon.svg/12px-PD-icon.svg.png" decoding="async" width="12" height="12" class="mw-file-element" srcset="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/62/PD-icon.svg/18px-PD-icon.svg.png 1.5x, //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/62/PD-icon.svg/24px-PD-icon.svg.png 2x" data-file-width="196" data-file-height="196" /></span></span> This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the <a href="/info/en/?search=Public_domain" title="Public domain">public domain</a>.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-35"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-35">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFPetersonKendall2021" class="citation news cs1">Peterson, Kristina; Kendall, Brent (February 16, 2021). <a class="external text" href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-giuliani-accused-of-conspiring-to-incite-a-riot-in-new-lawsuit-11613491170">"Trump, Giuliani Accused of Conspiring to Incite U.S. Capitol Riot in New Lawsuit"</a>. <i>The Wall Street Journal</i>. News Corp. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231010222633/https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-giuliani-accused-of-conspiring-to-incite-a-riot-in-new-lawsuit-11613491170">Archived</a> from the original on October 10, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">October 5,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Wall+Street+Journal&rft.atitle=Trump%2C+Giuliani+Accused+of+Conspiring+to+Incite+U.S.+Capitol+Riot+in+New+Lawsuit&rft.date=2021-02-16&rft.aulast=Peterson&rft.aufirst=Kristina&rft.au=Kendall%2C+Brent&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Ftrump-giuliani-accused-of-conspiring-to-incite-a-riot-in-new-lawsuit-11613491170&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-36"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-36">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFKendall2021" class="citation news cs1">Kendall, Brent (March 5, 2021). <a class="external text" href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-faces-new-lawsuit-alleging-incitement-of-capitol-riot-11614965456">"Trump Faces New Lawsuit Alleging Incitement of Capitol Riot"</a>. <i>The Wall Street Journal</i>. News Corp. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231010222634/https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-faces-new-lawsuit-alleging-incitement-of-capitol-riot-11614965456">Archived</a> from the original on October 10, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">October 5,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Wall+Street+Journal&rft.atitle=Trump+Faces+New+Lawsuit+Alleging+Incitement+of+Capitol+Riot&rft.date=2021-03-05&rft.aulast=Kendall&rft.aufirst=Brent&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Ftrump-faces-new-lawsuit-alleging-incitement-of-capitol-riot-11614965456&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-37"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-37">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFDiaz2021" class="citation news cs1">Diaz, Jaclyn (March 31, 2021). <a class="external text" href="https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31/982928605/2-capitol-police-officers-sue-trump-for-injuries-sustained-during-jan-6-riot">"2 Capitol Police Officers Sue Trump For Injuries Sustained During Jan. 6 Riot"</a>. NPR. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210626095928/https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31/982928605/2-capitol-police-officers-sue-trump-for-injuries-sustained-during-jan-6-riot">Archived</a> from the original on June 26, 2021<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 27,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=2+Capitol+Police+Officers+Sue+Trump+For+Injuries+Sustained+During+Jan.+6+Riot&rft.date=2021-03-31&rft.aulast=Diaz&rft.aufirst=Jaclyn&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2F2021%2F03%2F31%2F982928605%2F2-capitol-police-officers-sue-trump-for-injuries-sustained-during-jan-6-riot&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-38"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-38">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFManganWilkie2022" class="citation web cs1">Mangan, Dan; Wilkie, Christina (December 19, 2022). <a class="external text" href="https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/19/jan-6-committee-details-trump-criminal-referral-of-trump-over-capitol-riot.html">"Jan. 6 committee sends DOJ historic criminal referral of Trump over Capitol riot"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=CNBC" title="CNBC">CNBC</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20221219192709/https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/19/jan-6-committee-details-trump-criminal-referral-of-trump-over-capitol-riot.html">Archived</a> from the original on December 19, 2022<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 19,</span> 2022</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=CNBC&rft.atitle=Jan.+6+committee+sends+DOJ+historic+criminal+referral+of+Trump+over+Capitol+riot&rft.date=2022-12-19&rft.aulast=Mangan&rft.aufirst=Dan&rft.au=Wilkie%2C+Christina&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnbc.com%2F2022%2F12%2F19%2Fjan-6-committee-details-trump-criminal-referral-of-trump-over-capitol-riot.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-39"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-39">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFBroadwater2022" class="citation web cs1">Broadwater, Luke (December 19, 2022). <a class="external text" href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/12/19/us/jan-6-committee-trump#jan-6-trump-criminal-justice-dept">"Accusing Trump of insurrection, the Jan. 6 committee refers him to the Justice Dept"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=The_New_York_Times" title="The New York Times">The New York Times</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231028223521/https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/12/19/us/jan-6-committee-trump#jan-6-trump-criminal-justice-dept">Archived</a> from the original on October 28, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 19,</span> 2022</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=The+New+York+Times&rft.atitle=Accusing+Trump+of+insurrection%2C+the+Jan.+6+committee+refers+him+to+the+Justice+Dept.&rft.date=2022-12-19&rft.aulast=Broadwater&rft.aufirst=Luke&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2Flive%2F2022%2F12%2F19%2Fus%2Fjan-6-committee-trump%23jan-6-trump-criminal-justice-dept&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-40"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-40">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation news cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-indicted-for-efforts-to-undermine-the-2020-election">"Trump indicted for efforts to undermine the 2020 election"</a>. <i>PBS NewsHour</i>. WETA. <a href="/info/en/?search=Associated_Press" title="Associated Press">Associated Press</a>. August 1, 2023. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230801215018/https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-indicted-for-efforts-to-undermine-the-2020-election">Archived</a> from the original on August 1, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">August 1,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=PBS+NewsHour&rft.atitle=Trump+indicted+for+efforts+to+undermine+the+2020+election&rft.date=2023-08-01&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbs.org%2Fnewshour%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-indicted-for-efforts-to-undermine-the-2020-election&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-41"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-41">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFGrabensteinSerino2023" class="citation news cs1">Grabenstein, Hannah; Serino, Kenichi (August 1, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-full-the-indictment-against-trump-for-his-efforts-to-overturn-the-2020-election">"Read the full indictment against Trump for his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election"</a>. <i>PBS NewsHour</i>. WETA. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230801215859/https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-full-the-indictment-against-trump-for-his-efforts-to-overturn-the-2020-election">Archived</a> from the original on August 1, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">August 1,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=PBS+NewsHour&rft.atitle=Read+the+full+indictment+against+Trump+for+his+alleged+efforts+to+overturn+the+2020+election&rft.date=2023-08-01&rft.aulast=Grabenstein&rft.aufirst=Hannah&rft.au=Serino%2C+Kenichi&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbs.org%2Fnewshour%2Fpolitics%2Fread-full-the-indictment-against-trump-for-his-efforts-to-overturn-the-2020-election&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBerris2023-42"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBerris2023_42-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBerris2023">Berris 2023</a>.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen2023-43"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen2023_43-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-44"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-44">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFCabralEpstein2023" class="citation news cs1">Cabral, Sam; Epstein, Kayla (September 9, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66690276">"The 14th Amendment plan to disqualify Trump, explained"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=BBC_News" title="BBC News">BBC News</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231116221332/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66690276">Archived</a> from the original on November 16, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">November 18,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=BBC+News&rft.atitle=The+14th+Amendment+plan+to+disqualify+Trump%2C+explained&rft.date=2023-09-09&rft.aulast=Cabral&rft.aufirst=Sam&rft.au=Epstein%2C+Kayla&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fworld-us-canada-66690276&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-45"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-45">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLiptak2023" class="citation news cs1">Liptak, Adam (August 10, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection-conservatives.html">"Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6"</a>. <i>The New York Times</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230810235244/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection-conservatives.html">Archived</a> from the original on August 10, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 20,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+New+York+Times&rft.atitle=Conservative+Case+Emerges+to+Disqualify+Trump+for+Role+on+Jan.+6&rft.date=2023-08-10&rft.aulast=Liptak&rft.aufirst=Adam&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2023%2F08%2F10%2Fus%2Ftrump-jan-6-insurrection-conservatives.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-46"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-46">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFHabeshian2023" class="citation news cs1">Habeshian, Sareen (November 18, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.axios.com/2023/11/16/trump-efforts-disqualify-2024-ballot-14th-amendment">"Where efforts to disqualify Trump from 2024 ballot stand"</a>. <i>Axios</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231118011526/https://www.axios.com/2023/11/16/trump-efforts-disqualify-2024-ballot-14th-amendment">Archived</a> from the original on November 18, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">November 18,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Axios&rft.atitle=Where+efforts+to+disqualify+Trump+from+2024+ballot+stand&rft.date=2023-11-18&rft.aulast=Habeshian&rft.aufirst=Sareen&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.axios.com%2F2023%2F11%2F16%2Ftrump-efforts-disqualify-2024-ballot-14th-amendment&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-47"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-47">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLuttigTribe2023" class="citation magazine cs1">Luttig, J. Michael; Tribe, Laurence H. (August 19, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://archive.today/20230820122539/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/">"The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=The_Atlantic" title="The Atlantic">The Atlantic</a></i>. Archived from <a class="external text" href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/">the original</a> on August 20, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">August 20,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Atlantic&rft.atitle=The+Constitution+Prohibits+Trump+From+Ever+Being+President+Again&rft.date=2023-08-19&rft.aulast=Luttig&rft.aufirst=J.+Michael&rft.au=Tribe%2C+Laurence+H.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fideas%2Farchive%2F2023%2F08%2Fdonald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency%2F675048%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-48"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-48">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFCole2024" class="citation web cs1">Cole, Devan (January 5, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/politics/supreme-court-trump-colorado-14th-amendment-insurrectionist-clause/index.html">"Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Trump can be barred from holding office"</a>. <i>CNN</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240106202647/https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/politics/supreme-court-trump-colorado-14th-amendment-insurrectionist-clause/index.html">Archived</a> from the original on January 6, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 6,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=CNN&rft.atitle=Supreme+Court+agrees+to+decide+whether+Trump+can+be+barred+from+holding+office&rft.date=2024-01-05&rft.aulast=Cole&rft.aufirst=Devan&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2024%2F01%2F05%2Fpolitics%2Fsupreme-court-trump-colorado-14th-amendment-insurrectionist-clause%2Findex.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552–553-49"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003552–553_49-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, pp. 552–553.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-50"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-50">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment</i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_523" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 523">523</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/523/83/#94">83, 94</a> (1998)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024b2-51"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024b2_51-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024b2_51-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024b2_51-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024b2_51-3"><sup><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFElseaJonesWhitaker2024b">Elsea, Jones & Whitaker 2024b</a>, p. 2.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-52"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-52">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Lujan_v._Defenders_of_Wildlife" title="Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife">Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_504" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 504">504</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/504/555/#560–561">555, 560–561</a> (1992)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-53"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-53">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Warth_v._Seldin" title="Warth v. Seldin">Warth v. Seldin</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_422" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 422">422</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/422/490/#498–499">490, 498–499</a> (1975)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-54"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-54">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>ASARCO v. Kadish</i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_490" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 490">490</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/605/#617">605, 617</a> (1989)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-55"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-55">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Marbury_v._Madison" title="Marbury v. Madison">Marbury v. Madison</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_5" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 5">5</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/">137</a> (1803)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-56"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-56">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLampe2022" class="citation report cs1">Lampe, Joanna R. (June 14, 2022). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10756">The Political Question Doctrine: An Introduction (Part 1)</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231221072239/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10756">Archived</a> from the original on December 21, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 27,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=The+Political+Question+Doctrine%3A+An+Introduction+%28Part+1%29&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2022-06-14&rft.aulast=Lampe&rft.aufirst=Joanna+R.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FLSB%2FLSB10756&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-57"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-57">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLampe2022" class="citation report cs1">Lampe, Joanna R. (June 14, 2022). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10758">The Political Question Doctrine: The Doctrine in the Modern Era (Part 3)</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230307045629/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10758">Archived</a> from the original on March 7, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 27,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=The+Political+Question+Doctrine%3A+The+Doctrine+in+the+Modern+Era+%28Part+3%29&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2022-06-14&rft.aulast=Lampe&rft.aufirst=Joanna+R.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FLSB%2FLSB10758&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-58"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-58">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Baker_v._Carr" title="Baker v. Carr">Baker v. Carr</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_369" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 369">369</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/369/186/#217">186, 217</a> (1962)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-59"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-59">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFNolan2014" class="citation report cs1">Nolan, Andrew (September 2, 2014). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43706">The Doctrine of Constitutional Avoidance: A Legal Overview</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231230182132/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43706">Archived</a> from the original on December 30, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 27,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=The+Doctrine+of+Constitutional+Avoidance%3A+A+Legal+Overview&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2014-09-02&rft.aulast=Nolan&rft.aufirst=Andrew&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FR%2FR43706&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-60"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-60">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Ashwander_v._Tennessee_Valley_Authority" title="Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority">Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_297" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 297">297</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/297/288/#346–348">288, 346–348</a> (1936)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003553-61"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003553_61-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003553_61-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003553_61-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003553_61-3"><sup><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, p. 553.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-CRS_5-22-2020-62"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-CRS_5-22-2020_62-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-CRS_5-22-2020_62-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLampe2020" class="citation report cs1">Lampe, Joanna R. (May 22, 2020). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11557">Congress, the Judiciary, and Civil and Criminal Procedure</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 12,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Congress%2C+the+Judiciary%2C+and+Civil+and+Criminal+Procedure&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2020-05-22&rft.aulast=Lampe&rft.aufirst=Joanna+R.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FIF%2FIF11557&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-63"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-63">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="/info/en/?search=Public_Law_(United_States)" class="mw-redirect" title="Public Law (United States)"><abbr title="Public Law (United States)">Pub. L.</abbr></a><span class="sr-only" style="border: 0; clip: rect(0, 0, 0, 0); clip-path: polygon(0px 0px, 0px 0px, 0px 0px); height: 1px; margin: -1px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0; position: absolute; width: 1px; white-space: nowrap;">Tooltip Public Law (United States)</span> <a class="external text" href="https://uslaw.link/citation/us-law/public/93/595">93–595</a>, 88 <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Statutes_at_Large" title="United States Statutes at Large">Stat.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://legislink.org/us/stat-88-1926">1926</a></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-64"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-64">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Beech_Aircraft_Corp._v._Rainey" title="Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey">Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_488" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 488">488</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/488/153/#154">153, 154</a> (1988)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-65"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-65">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">Fed. Rules Evid. <a class="external text" href="https://www.rulesofevidence.org/rule_803">803</a></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-66"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-66">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Beech_Aircraft_Corp._v._Rainey" title="Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey">Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_488" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 488">488</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/488/153/#167">153, 167</a> (1988)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEElsea20222-67"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20222_67-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20222_67-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20222_67-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20222_67-3"><sup><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20222_67-4"><sup><i><b>e</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFElsea2022">Elsea 2022</a>, p. 2.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-68"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-68">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFBlackmanTillman2021" class="citation web cs1">Blackman, Josh; Tillman, Seth Barrett (January 20, 2021). <a class="external text" href="https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/20/is-the-president-an-officer-of-the-united-states-for-purposes-of-section-3-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/">"Is the President an "officer of the United States" for purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment?"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=The_Volokh_Conspiracy" title="The Volokh Conspiracy">The Volokh Conspiracy</a></i>. <a href="/info/en/?search=Reason_Foundation" title="Reason Foundation">Reason Foundation</a>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231130042420/https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/20/is-the-president-an-officer-of-the-united-states-for-purposes-of-section-3-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/">Archived</a> from the original on November 30, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 7,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=The+Volokh+Conspiracy&rft.atitle=Is+the+President+an+%22officer+of+the+United+States%22+for+purposes+of+Section+3+of+the+Fourteenth+Amendment%3F&rft.date=2021-01-20&rft.aulast=Blackman&rft.aufirst=Josh&rft.au=Tillman%2C+Seth+Barrett&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Freason.com%2Fvolokh%2F2021%2F01%2F20%2Fis-the-president-an-officer-of-the-united-states-for-purposes-of-section-3-of-the-fourteenth-amendment%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a3-69"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a3_69-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBlackmanTillman2021a">Blackman & Tillman 2021a</a>, p. 3.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a10-70"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a10_70-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBlackmanTillman2021a">Blackman & Tillman 2021a</a>, p. 10.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a5–21-71"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a5–21_71-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBlackmanTillman2021a">Blackman & Tillman 2021a</a>, pp. 5–21.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544-72"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544_72-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544_72-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544_72-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544_72-3"><sup><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544_72-4"><sup><i><b>e</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544_72-5"><sup><i><b>f</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544_72-6"><sup><i><b>g</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544_72-7"><sup><i><b>h</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544_72-8"><sup><i><b>i</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, p. 544.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003545-73"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003545_73-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003545_73-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003545_73-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003545_73-3"><sup><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, p. 545.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003549–551-74"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003549–551_74-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, pp. 549–551.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003555–556-75"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003555–556_75-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003555–556_75-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003555–556_75-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, pp. 555–556.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-77"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-77">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Mississippi_v._Johnson" title="Mississippi v. Johnson">Mississippi v. Johnson</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_71" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 71">71</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/71/475/">475</a> (1867)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-78"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-78">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_v._Hartwell" title="United States v. Hartwell">United States v. Hartwell</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_73" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 73">73</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/73/385/">385</a> (1867)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-79"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-79">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_v._Mouat" title="United States v. Mouat">United States v. Mouat</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_124" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 124">124</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/124/303/">303</a> (1888)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-80"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-80">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Free_Enterprise_Fund_v._Public_Company_Accounting_Oversight_Board" title="Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board">Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_561" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 561">561</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/477/">477</a> (2010)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a21–31-81"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a21–31_81-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBlackmanTillman2021a">Blackman & Tillman 2021a</a>, pp. 21–31.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a5-82"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a5_82-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a5_82-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a5_82-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a5_82-3"><sup><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFElseaJonesWhitaker2024a">Elsea, Jones & Whitaker 2024a</a>, p. 5.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2023-83"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2023_83-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBlackmanTillman2023">Blackman & Tillman 2023</a>.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a9–10-85"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a9–10_85-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBlackmanTillman2021a">Blackman & Tillman 2021a</a>, pp. 9–10.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003551–552-86"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003551–552_86-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003551–552_86-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, pp. 551–552.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-87"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-87">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFFarrand1911" class="citation web cs1">Farrand, Max, ed. (1911). <a class="external text" href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/farrand-the-records-of-the-federal-convention-of-1787-vol-2">"The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Volume II"</a>. <i>Online Library of Liberty</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231215081102/https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/farrand-the-records-of-the-federal-convention-of-1787-vol-2">Archived</a> from the original on December 15, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 15,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Online+Library+of+Liberty&rft.atitle=The+Records+of+the+Federal+Convention+of+1787%2C+Volume+II&rft.date=1911&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Foll.libertyfund.org%2Ftitle%2Ffarrand-the-records-of-the-federal-convention-of-1787-vol-2&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003549–550-88"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003549–550_88-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, pp. 549–550.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003556-89"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003556_89-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003556_89-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, p. 556.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Somin_Volokh_Conspiracy_9-16-2023-90"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Somin_Volokh_Conspiracy_9-16-2023_90-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Somin_Volokh_Conspiracy_9-16-2023_90-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFSomin2023" class="citation web cs1">Somin, Ilya (September 16, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://reason.com/volokh/2023/09/16/why-president-trump-is-an-officer-who-can-be-disqualified-from-holding-public-office-under-section-3-of-the-14th-amendment/">"Why President Trump is an "Officer" who Can be Disqualified From Holding Public Office Under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment"</a>. <i>The Volokh Conspiracy</i>. Reason Foundation. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231217020500/https://reason.com/volokh/2023/09/16/why-president-trump-is-an-officer-who-can-be-disqualified-from-holding-public-office-under-section-3-of-the-14th-amendment/">Archived</a> from the original on December 17, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 14,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=The+Volokh+Conspiracy&rft.atitle=Why+President+Trump+is+an+%22Officer%22+who+Can+be+Disqualified+From+Holding+Public+Office+Under+Section+3+of+the+14th+Amendment&rft.date=2023-09-16&rft.aulast=Somin&rft.aufirst=Ilya&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Freason.com%2Fvolokh%2F2023%2F09%2F16%2Fwhy-president-trump-is-an-officer-who-can-be-disqualified-from-holding-public-office-under-section-3-of-the-14th-amendment%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a17,_25-91"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a17,_25_91-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBlackmanTillman2021a">Blackman & Tillman 2021a</a>, pp. 17, 25.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-92"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-92">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFTillmanBlackman2023" class="citation journal cs1">Tillman, Seth Barrett; Blackman, Josh (2023). "Officers and Offices of the Constitution Part IV: The 'Office ... under the United States' Drafting Convention". <i>S. Tex Law Rev</i>. <b>62</b> (4). <a href="/info/en/?search=SSRN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="SSRN (identifier)">SSRN</a> <span class="id-lock-free" title="Freely accessible"><a class="external text" href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4432246">4432246</a></span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=S.+Tex+Law+Rev.&rft.atitle=Officers+and+Offices+of+the+Constitution+Part+IV%3A+The+%27Office+...+under+the+United+States%27+Drafting+Convention&rft.volume=62&rft.issue=4&rft.date=2023&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fpapers.ssrn.com%2Fsol3%2Fpapers.cfm%3Fabstract_id%3D4432246%23id-name%3DSSRN&rft.aulast=Tillman&rft.aufirst=Seth+Barrett&rft.au=Blackman%2C+Josh&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a15-93"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a15_93-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBlackmanTillman2021a">Blackman & Tillman 2021a</a>, p. 15.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEMascott2018-94"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMascott2018_94-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFMascott2018">Mascott 2018</a>.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEMascott2018459–460-95"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMascott2018459–460_95-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFMascott2018">Mascott 2018</a>, pp. 459–460.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021158–160-96"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021158–160_96-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLynch2021">Lynch 2021</a>, pp. 158–160.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-97"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-97">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Buckley_v._Valeo" title="Buckley v. Valeo">Buckley v. Valeo</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_424" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 424">424</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/424/1/#126">1, 126</a> (1976)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-98"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-98">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFBradbury2007" class="citation report cs1 cs1-prop-long-vol"><a href="/info/en/?search=Steven_G._Bradbury" title="Steven G. Bradbury">Bradbury, Steven G.</a> (April 16, 2007). <a class="external text" href="https://www.justice.gov/file/494641/dl?inline">Officers of the United States Within the Meaning of the Appointments Clause</a> (Report). Vol. 31, Opinions. Office of Legal Counsel. pp. 73–122<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 11,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Officers+of+the+United+States+Within+the+Meaning+of+the+Appointments+Clause&rft.pages=73-122&rft.pub=Office+of+Legal+Counsel&rft.date=2007-04-16&rft.aulast=Bradbury&rft.aufirst=Steven+G.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.justice.gov%2Ffile%2F494641%2Fdl%3Finline&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEMascott2018462–470-99"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMascott2018462–470_99-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFMascott2018">Mascott 2018</a>, pp. 462–470.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021161-100"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021161_100-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLynch2021">Lynch 2021</a>, p. 161.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-101"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-101">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_v._Hartwell" title="United States v. Hartwell">United States v. Hartwell</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_73" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 73">73</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/73/385/#393">385, 393</a> (1867)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-102"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-102">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_v._Germaine" title="United States v. Germaine">United States v. Germaine</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_99" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 99">99</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/99/508/#510–512">508, 510–512</a> (1878)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEMurrill201818–22-103"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMurrill201818–22_103-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMurrill201818–22_103-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFMurrill2018">Murrill 2018</a>, pp. 18–22.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021161–162-104"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021161–162_104-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLynch2021">Lynch 2021</a>, pp. 161–162.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003551-105"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003551_105-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003551_105-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003551_105-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003551_105-3"><sup><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003551_105-4"><sup><i><b>e</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, p. 551.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020a3-106"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020a3_106-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020a3_106-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNeale2020a">Neale 2020a</a>, p. 3.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEContinuity_of_Government_Commission200925–29-107"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEContinuity_of_Government_Commission200925–29_107-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEContinuity_of_Government_Commission200925–29_107-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFContinuity_of_Government_Commission2009">Continuity of Government Commission 2009</a>, pp. 25–29.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEContinuity_of_Government_Commission200929–30-108"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEContinuity_of_Government_Commission200929–30_108-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEContinuity_of_Government_Commission200929–30_108-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFContinuity_of_Government_Commission2009">Continuity of Government Commission 2009</a>, pp. 29–30.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020a4-109"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020a4_109-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020a4_109-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020a4_109-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNeale2020a">Neale 2020a</a>, p. 4.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEContinuity_of_Government_Commission200932–33-110"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEContinuity_of_Government_Commission200932–33_110-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFContinuity_of_Government_Commission2009">Continuity of Government Commission 2009</a>, pp. 32–33.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020a4–6-111"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020a4–6_111-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNeale2020a">Neale 2020a</a>, pp. 4–6.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020a7–8-112"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020a7–8_112-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNeale2020a">Neale 2020a</a>, pp. 7–8.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020a8-113"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020a8_113-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNeale2020a">Neale 2020a</a>, p. 8.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-114"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-114">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>Lamar v. United States</i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_241" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 241">241</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/241/103/#111–113">103, 111–113</a> (1916)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003563-115"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003563_115-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, p. 563.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003374–376,_543-116"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003374–376,_543_116-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, pp. 374–376, 543.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-117"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-117">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed62.asp">"The Avalon Project – Federalist No 62"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Avalon_Project" title="Avalon Project">Avalon Project</a></i>. <a href="/info/en/?search=New_Haven,_Connecticut" title="New Haven, Connecticut">New Haven, CT</a>: <a href="/info/en/?search=Yale_Law_School" title="Yale Law School">Yale Law School</a>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231106073515/https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed62.asp">Archived</a> from the original on November 6, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 12,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Avalon+Project&rft.atitle=The+Avalon+Project+%E2%80%93+Federalist+No+62&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Favalon.law.yale.edu%2F18th_century%2Ffed62.asp&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202311–14-118"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202311–14_118-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLash2023">Lash 2023</a>, pp. 11–14.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEColeGarvey202316–17-119"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEColeGarvey202316–17_119-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFColeGarvey2023">Cole & Garvey 2023</a>, pp. 16–17.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-120"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-120">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Minor_v._Happersett" title="Minor v. Happersett">Minor v. Happersett</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_88" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 88">88</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/#170–171">162, 170–171</a> (1875)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-121"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-121">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-2/clause-3/executive-privilege-overview">"Executive Privilege: Overview – U.S. Constitution Annotated"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Legal_Information_Institute" title="Legal Information Institute">Legal Information Institute</a></i>. <a href="/info/en/?search=Cornell_Law_School" title="Cornell Law School">Cornell Law School</a>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231214194436/https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-2/clause-3/executive-privilege-overview">Archived</a> from the original on December 14, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 14,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Legal+Information+Institute&rft.atitle=Executive+Privilege%3A+Overview+%E2%80%93+U.S.+Constitution+Annotated&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.cornell.edu%2Fconstitution-conan%2Farticle-2%2Fsection-2%2Fclause-3%2Fexecutive-privilege-overview&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-122"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-122">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><cite><i><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_v._Burr" class="mw-redirect" title="United States v. Burr">United States v. Burr</a></i></cite>, <a class="external text" href="https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_1s19.html">30 Fed. Cas. 30, no. 14,692d</a> (C.C.D.Va. 1807).</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-123"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-123">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Mississippi_v._Johnson" title="Mississippi v. Johnson">Mississippi v. Johnson</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_71" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 71">71</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=71&page=475#479">475, 479</a> (1875)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020b3–4-124"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020b3–4_124-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNeale2020b">Neale 2020b</a>, pp. 3–4.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003561-125"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003561_125-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003561_125-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, p. 561.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-126"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-126">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.inaugural.senate.gov/days-events/vice-presidents-swearing-in-ceremony">"Vice President's Swearing-In Ceremony"</a>. <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Joint_Congressional_Committee_on_Inaugural_Ceremonies" title="United States Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies">United States Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies</a>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170118053658/http://www.inaugural.senate.gov/days-events/vice-presidents-swearing-in-ceremony">Archived</a> from the original on January 18, 2017<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 17,</span> 2017</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Vice+President%27s+Swearing-In+Ceremony&rft.pub=United+States+Joint+Congressional+Committee+on+Inaugural+Ceremonies&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.inaugural.senate.gov%2Fdays-events%2Fvice-presidents-swearing-in-ceremony&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-127"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-127">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">1 <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Statutes_at_Large" title="United States Statutes at Large">Stat.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://legislink.org/us/stat-1-23">23</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=Public_Law_(United_States)" class="mw-redirect" title="Public Law (United States)"><abbr title="Public Law (United States)">Pub. L.</abbr></a><span class="sr-only" style="border: 0; clip: rect(0, 0, 0, 0); clip-path: polygon(0px 0px, 0px 0px, 0px 0px); height: 1px; margin: -1px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0; position: absolute; width: 1px; white-space: nowrap;">Tooltip Public Law (United States)</span> <a class="external text" href="https://uslaw.link/citation/us-law/public/1/1">1–1</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=Title_2_of_the_United_States_Code" title="Title 2 of the United States Code">2 U.S.C.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/22">§ 22</a></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003410–412-128"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003410–412_128-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, pp. 410–412.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-129"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-129">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp">"The Avalon Project – Federalist No 68"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Avalon_Project" title="Avalon Project">Avalon Project</a></i>. <a href="/info/en/?search=New_Haven,_Connecticut" title="New Haven, Connecticut">New Haven, CT</a>: <a href="/info/en/?search=Yale_Law_School" title="Yale Law School">Yale Law School</a>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20220924054528/https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp">Archived</a> from the original on September 24, 2022<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">September 21,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Avalon+Project&rft.atitle=The+Avalon+Project+%E2%80%93+Federalist+No+68&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Favalon.law.yale.edu%2F18th_century%2Ffed68.asp&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Williams_2012_p._1567-130"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Williams_2012_p._1567_130-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Williams_2012_p._1567_130-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFWilliams2012" class="citation journal cs1">Williams, Norman R. (2012). <a class="external text" href="https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2686&context=lawreview">"Why the National Popular Vote Compact is Unconstitutional"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=BYU_Law_Review" title="BYU Law Review">BYU Law Review</a></i>. <b>2012</b> (5). <a href="/info/en/?search=J._Reuben_Clark_Law_School" title="J. Reuben Clark Law School">J. Reuben Clark Law School</a>: 1567. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210506175208/https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2686&context=lawreview">Archived</a> from the original on May 6, 2021<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">October 14,</span> 2020</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=BYU+Law+Review&rft.atitle=Why+the+National+Popular+Vote+Compact+is+Unconstitutional&rft.volume=2012&rft.issue=5&rft.pages=1567&rft.date=2012&rft.aulast=Williams&rft.aufirst=Norman+R.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.law.byu.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D2686%26context%3Dlawreview&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-131"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-131">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=1868">"1868 Presidential General Election Results"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Dave_Leip%27s_Atlas_of_U.S._Presidential_Elections" title="Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections">Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections</a></i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">February 2,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Dave+Leip%27s+Atlas+of+U.S.+Presidential+Elections&rft.atitle=1868+Presidential+General+Election+Results&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fuselectionatlas.org%2FRESULTS%2Fnational.php%3Ff%3D0%26year%3D1868&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-132"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-132">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFNeale2017" class="citation report cs1">Neale, Thomas H. (May 15, 2017). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32611">The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service. pp. 5–6. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210302054826/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/rl/rl32611">Archived</a> from the original on March 2, 2021<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 11,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=The+Electoral+College%3A+How+It+Works+in+Contemporary+Presidential+Elections&rft.pages=5-6&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2017-05-15&rft.aulast=Neale&rft.aufirst=Thomas+H.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FRL%2FRL32611&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-CRS_1-27-2021-133"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-CRS_1-27-2021_133-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-CRS_1-27-2021_133-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-CRS_1-27-2021_133-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFHickeyFoster2021" class="citation report cs1">Hickey, Kevin J.; Foster, Michael A. (January 27, 2021). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11086">The Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210422230231/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11086">Archived</a> from the original on April 22, 2021<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 31,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=The+Emoluments+Clauses+of+the+U.S.+Constitution&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2021-01-27&rft.aulast=Hickey&rft.aufirst=Kevin+J.&rft.au=Foster%2C+Michael+A.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FIF%2FIF11086&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-134"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-134">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="/info/en/?search=Title_3_of_the_United_States_Code" title="Title 3 of the United States Code">3 U.S.C.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/102">§ 102</a></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-135"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-135">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFGroppe2019" class="citation web cs1">Groppe, Maureeen (February 14, 2019). <a class="external text" href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/14/vice-president-pences-salary-rising-but-not-much-gop-wanted/2872326002/">"Vice President Pence's pay bump is not as big as Republicans wanted"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=USA_Today" title="USA Today">USA Today</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190415044023/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/14/vice-president-pences-salary-rising-but-not-much-gop-wanted/2872326002/">Archived</a> from the original on April 15, 2019<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">April 15,</span> 2019</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=USA+Today&rft.atitle=Vice+President+Pence%27s+pay+bump+is+not+as+big+as+Republicans+wanted&rft.date=2019-02-14&rft.aulast=Groppe&rft.aufirst=Maureeen&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2F2019%2F02%2F14%2Fvice-president-pences-salary-rising-but-not-much-gop-wanted%2F2872326002%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Heitshusen_CRS_5-16-2017-136"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Heitshusen_CRS_5-16-2017_136-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Heitshusen_CRS_5-16-2017_136-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFHeitshusen2017" class="citation report cs1">Heitshusen, Valerie (May 16, 2017). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/97-780">The Speaker of the House: House Officer, Party Leader, and Representative</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service. p. 2. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210114194706/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/97-780">Archived</a> from the original on January 14, 2021<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">October 5,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=The+Speaker+of+the+House%3A+House+Officer%2C+Party+Leader%2C+and+Representative&rft.pages=2&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2017-05-16&rft.aulast=Heitshusen&rft.aufirst=Valerie&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FRL%2F97-780&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003543-137"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003543_137-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003543_137-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003543_137-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, p. 543.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-138"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-138">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFHeitshusen2023" class="citation report cs1">Heitshusen, Valerie (May 31, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44243">Electing the Speaker of the House of Representatives: Frequently Asked Questions</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service. p. 2. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231004185257/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44243">Archived</a> from the original on October 4, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">October 5,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Electing+the+Speaker+of+the+House+of+Representatives%3A+Frequently+Asked+Questions&rft.pages=2&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2023-05-31&rft.aulast=Heitshusen&rft.aufirst=Valerie&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FR%2FR44243&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020a5-139"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020a5_139-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNeale2020a">Neale 2020a</a>, p. 5.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-140"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-140">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFStraus2013" class="citation report cs1">Straus, Jacob R. (February 12, 2013). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/98-747">Secretary of the Senate: Legislative and Administrative Duties</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service. pp. 5–6. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210929083445/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/98-747">Archived</a> from the original on September 29, 2021<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 12,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Secretary+of+the+Senate%3A+Legislative+and+Administrative+Duties&rft.pages=5-6&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2013-02-12&rft.aulast=Straus&rft.aufirst=Jacob+R.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FRS%2F98-747&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-141"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-141">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.senate.gov/about/officers-staff/secretary-of-the-senate/secretaries.htm">"U.S. Senate: About the Secretary of the Senate – Secretaries"</a>. <i>senate.gov</i>. United States Senate. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231212161509/https://www.senate.gov/about/officers-staff/secretary-of-the-senate/secretaries.htm">Archived</a> from the original on December 12, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 20,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=senate.gov&rft.atitle=U.S.+Senate%3A+About+the+Secretary+of+the+Senate+%E2%80%93+Secretaries&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.senate.gov%2Fabout%2Fofficers-staff%2Fsecretary-of-the-senate%2Fsecretaries.htm&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-142"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-142">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">1 <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Statutes_at_Large" title="United States Statutes at Large">Stat.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://legislink.org/us/stat-1-23">23</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=Public_Law_(United_States)" class="mw-redirect" title="Public Law (United States)"><abbr title="Public Law (United States)">Pub. L.</abbr></a><span class="sr-only" style="border: 0; clip: rect(0, 0, 0, 0); clip-path: polygon(0px 0px, 0px 0px, 0px 0px); height: 1px; margin: -1px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0; position: absolute; width: 1px; white-space: nowrap;">Tooltip Public Law (United States)</span> <a class="external text" href="https://uslaw.link/citation/us-law/public/1/1">1–1</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=Title_2_of_the_United_States_Code" title="Title 2 of the United States Code">2 U.S.C.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/25">§ 25</a></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-143"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-143">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://clerk.house.gov/About#OverviewContact">"Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives – About The Clerk"</a>. Clerk of the United States House of Representatives. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230701130402/https://clerk.house.gov/About#OverviewContact">Archived</a> from the original on July 1, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">October 15,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Office+of+the+Clerk%2C+U.S.+House+of+Representatives+%E2%80%93+About+The+Clerk&rft.pub=Clerk+of+the+United+States+House+of+Representatives&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fclerk.house.gov%2FAbout%23OverviewContact&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEMurrill201822–23-144"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMurrill201822–23_144-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFMurrill2018">Murrill 2018</a>, pp. 22–23.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-145"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-145">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=NLRB_v._Noel_Canning" title="NLRB v. Noel Canning">NLRB v. Noel Canning</a></i>, No. <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/12-1281/">12-1281</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_573" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 573">573</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/513/">513</a>, slip op. at 7 (2014)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-146"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-146">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Marbury_v._Madison" title="Marbury v. Madison">Marbury v. Madison</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_5" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 5">5</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/#177">137, 177</a> (1803)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-147"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-147">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=McCulloch_v._Maryland" title="McCulloch v. Maryland">McCulloch v. Maryland</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_17" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 17">17</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/316/#401">316, 401</a> (1819)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-148"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-148">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=McCulloch_v._Maryland" title="McCulloch v. Maryland">McCulloch v. Maryland</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_17" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 17">17</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/316/#401–402">316, 401–402</a> (1819)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-149"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-149">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFKosar2013" class="citation report cs1">Kosar, Kevin R. (April 19, 2013). <a class="external text" href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RS22230.pdf">Congressional or Federal Charters: Overview and Enduring Issues</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Federation_of_American_Scientists" title="Federation of American Scientists">Federation of American Scientists</a></i> (Report). Congressional Research Service. pp. 1–2. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20220517232312/https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RS22230.pdf">Archived</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span> from the original on May 17, 2022<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">May 3,</span> 2022</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Congressional+or+Federal+Charters%3A+Overview+and+Enduring+Issues&rft.pages=1-2&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2013-04-19&rft.aulast=Kosar&rft.aufirst=Kevin+R.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fsgp.fas.org%2Fcrs%2Fmisc%2FRS22230.pdf&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-150"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-150">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFHogue2022" class="citation report cs1">Hogue, Henry B. (September 8, 2022). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47236">Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service. p. 8. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231220220853/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47236">Archived</a> from the original on December 20, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 21,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Title+36+Charters%3A+The+History+and+Evolution+of+Congressional+Practices&rft.pages=8&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2022-09-08&rft.aulast=Hogue&rft.aufirst=Henry+B.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FR%2FR47236&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a-151"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a_151-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBlackmanTillman2021a">Blackman & Tillman 2021a</a>.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2023185–229-152"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2023185–229_152-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBlackmanTillman2023">Blackman & Tillman 2023</a>, pp. 185–229.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELash20235-153"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash20235_153-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLash2023">Lash 2023</a>, p. 5.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBrannon202351-154"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBrannon202351_154-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBrannon2023">Brannon 2023</a>, p. 51.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a2-155"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a2_155-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a2_155-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFElseaJonesWhitaker2024a">Elsea, Jones & Whitaker 2024a</a>, p. 2.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a24-156"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2021a24_156-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBlackmanTillman2021a">Blackman & Tillman 2021a</a>, p. 24.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2023186-157"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2023186_157-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBlackmanTillman2023">Blackman & Tillman 2023</a>, p. 186.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003558-158"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003558_158-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003558_158-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, p. 558.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus20236–7-159"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus20236–7_159-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFVlahoplus2023">Vlahoplus 2023</a>, pp. 6–7.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus20237–10-160"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus20237–10_160-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus20237–10_160-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFVlahoplus2023">Vlahoplus 2023</a>, pp. 7–10.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003549-161"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003549_161-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003549_161-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003549_161-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003549_161-3"><sup><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003549_161-4"><sup><i><b>e</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, p. 549.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus202311-162"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus202311_162-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFVlahoplus2023">Vlahoplus 2023</a>, p. 11.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-163"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-163">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_v._Mouat" title="United States v. Mouat">United States v. Mouat</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_124" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 124">124</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/124/303/#305–306">303, 305–306</a> (1888)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen2023104–112-164"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen2023104–112_164-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, pp. 104–112.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus2023-165"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus2023_165-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFVlahoplus2023">Vlahoplus 2023</a>.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a-166"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a_166-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFGraber2023a">Graber 2023a</a>.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBrannon202321–24-167"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBrannon202321–24_167-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBrannon2023">Brannon 2023</a>, pp. 21–24.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEMagliocca2021-168"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMagliocca2021_168-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFMagliocca2021">Magliocca 2021</a>.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-169"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-169">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=20">"In Senate: Wednesday, May 30, 1866: Reconstruction"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=39th_United_States_Congress" title="39th United States Congress">39th United States Congress</a></i>. <a href="/info/en/?search=Congressional_Record" title="Congressional Record">Congressional Globe</a>. May 30, 1866. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231209021137/https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=20">Archived</a> from the original on December 9, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 9,</span> 2023</span> – via The Library of Congress.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=39th+United+States+Congress&rft.atitle=In+Senate%3A+Wednesday%2C+May+30%2C+1866%3A+Reconstruction&rft.date=1866-05-30&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fmemory.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fampage%3FcollId%3Dllcg%26fileName%3D073%2Fllcg073.db%26recNum%3D20&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a4-170"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a4_170-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFElseaJonesWhitaker2024a">Elsea, Jones & Whitaker 2024a</a>, p. 4.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen2023109-171"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen2023109_171-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, p. 109.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-172"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-172">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation news cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/TestOath1863_CongressionalGlobe.pdf">"Senate Special Session"</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span>. March 13, 1863. p. 98. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230605025444/https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/TestOath1863_CongressionalGlobe.pdf">Archived</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span> from the original on June 5, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 23,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Senate+Special+Session&rft.pages=98&rft.date=1863-03-13&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.senate.gov%2Fartandhistory%2Fhistory%2Fresources%2Fpdf%2FTestOath1863_CongressionalGlobe.pdf&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus202310–11-173"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus202310–11_173-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus202310–11_173-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFVlahoplus2023">Vlahoplus 2023</a>, pp. 10–11.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021165–167-174"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021165–167_174-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLynch2021">Lynch 2021</a>, pp. 165–167.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021163-175"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021163_175-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLynch2021">Lynch 2021</a>, p. 163.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-176"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-176">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>Kendall v. United States ex Rel. Stokes</i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_37" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 37">37</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/37/524/">524</a> (1838)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202312–13,_48–50-177"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202312–13,_48–50_177-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLash2023">Lash 2023</a>, pp. 12–13, 48–50.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202312,_33–37-178"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202312,_33–37_178-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLash2023">Lash 2023</a>, pp. 12, 33–37.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-179"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-179">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFGraber2023" class="citation web cs1">Graber, Mark A. (February 23, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/disqualification-office-donald-trump-v-39th-congress">"Disqualification From Office: Donald Trump v. the 39th Congress"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Lawfare_(website)" title="Lawfare (website)">Lawfare</a></i>. <a href="/info/en/?search=Brookings_Institution" title="Brookings Institution">Brookings Institution</a>/Lawfare Institute. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231216222604/https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/disqualification-office-donald-trump-v-39th-congress">Archived</a> from the original on December 16, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 16,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Lawfare&rft.atitle=Disqualification+From+Office%3A+Donald+Trump+v.+the+39th+Congress&rft.date=2023-02-23&rft.aulast=Graber&rft.aufirst=Mark+A.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawfaremedia.org%2Farticle%2Fdisqualification-office-donald-trump-v-39th-congress&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-180"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-180">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation journal cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=074/llcg074.db&recNum=100">"First Session of the 39th Congress"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_House_Journal" title="United States House Journal">United States House Journal</a></i>. <a href="/info/en/?search=Library_of_Congress" title="Library of Congress">Library of Congress</a>: 3939. July 19, 1866. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231216222604/https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=074/llcg074.db&recNum=100">Archived</a> from the original on December 16, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 16,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=United+States+House+Journal&rft.atitle=First+Session+of+the+39th+Congress&rft.pages=3939&rft.date=1866-07-19&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fmemory.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fampage%3FcollId%3Dllcg%26fileName%3D074%2Fllcg074.db%26recNum%3D100&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a17–24-181"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a17–24_181-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFGraber2023a">Graber 2023a</a>, pp. 17–24.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus202321–25-182"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus202321–25_182-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFVlahoplus2023">Vlahoplus 2023</a>, pp. 21–25.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202313-183"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202313_183-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLash2023">Lash 2023</a>, p. 13.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus202316–19-184"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus202316–19_184-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFVlahoplus2023">Vlahoplus 2023</a>, pp. 16–19.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-185"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-185">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Nixon_v._Fitzgerald" title="Nixon v. Fitzgerald">Nixon v. Fitzgerald</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_457" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 457">457</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/731/#749–750">731, 749–750</a> (1982)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202110–11-186"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202110–11_186-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFMagliocca2021">Magliocca 2021</a>, pp. 10–11.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021162–165-187"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021162–165_187-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLynch2021">Lynch 2021</a>, pp. 162–165.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a4–7-188"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a4–7_188-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFGraber2023a">Graber 2023a</a>, pp. 4–7.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202318–19,_46–48-189"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202318–19,_46–48_189-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLash2023">Lash 2023</a>, pp. 18–19, 46–48.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-190"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-190">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation journal cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=079/llcg079.db&recNum=919">"Second Session of the 40th Congress"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Senate_Journal" title="United States Senate Journal">United States Senate Journal</a></i>. <a href="/info/en/?search=Library_of_Congress" title="Library of Congress">Library of Congress</a>: 556. January 16, 1866. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240107020940/https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=079/llcg079.db&recNum=919">Archived</a> from the original on January 7, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 1,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=United+States+Senate+Journal&rft.atitle=Second+Session+of+the+40th+Congress&rft.pages=556&rft.date=1866-01-16&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fmemory.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fampage%3FcollId%3Dllcg%26fileName%3D079%2Fllcg079.db%26recNum%3D919&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202314–29-191"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202314–29_191-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLash2023">Lash 2023</a>, pp. 14–29.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a2–3-192"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a2–3_192-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFElseaJonesWhitaker2024a">Elsea, Jones & Whitaker 2024a</a>, pp. 2–3.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a3–5-193"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a3–5_193-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFElseaJonesWhitaker2024a">Elsea, Jones & Whitaker 2024a</a>, pp. 3–5.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a4–5-194"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a4–5_194-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024a4–5_194-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFElseaJonesWhitaker2024a">Elsea, Jones & Whitaker 2024a</a>, pp. 4–5.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202329–33-195"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202329–33_195-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLash2023">Lash 2023</a>, pp. 29–33.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a14–17-196"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a14–17_196-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFGraber2023a">Graber 2023a</a>, pp. 14–17.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus202313–15-197"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus202313–15_197-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFVlahoplus2023">Vlahoplus 2023</a>, pp. 13–15.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Congressional_Globe_6-13-1866-198"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Congressional_Globe_6-13-1866_198-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Congressional_Globe_6-13-1866_198-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/073/0200/02703148.tif">"In Senate: June 13, 1866: Reconstruction"</a>. <i>39th United States Congress</i>. Congressional Globe. June 13, 1866. p. 3148–3149<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">February 7,</span> 2024</span> – via The Library of Congress.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=39th+United+States+Congress&rft.atitle=In+Senate%3A+June+13%2C+1866%3A+Reconstruction&rft.pages=3148-3149&rft.date=1866-06-13&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fmemory.loc.gov%2Fll%2Fllcg%2F073%2F0200%2F02703148.tif&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202338–39-199"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202338–39_199-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202338–39_199-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLash2023">Lash 2023</a>, pp. 38–39.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202357–62-200"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202357–62_200-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202357–62_200-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202357–62_200-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLash2023">Lash 2023</a>, pp. 57–62.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEElsea20223-201"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20223_201-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20223_201-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20223_201-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20223_201-3"><sup><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20223_201-4"><sup><i><b>e</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20223_201-5"><sup><i><b>f</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFElsea2022">Elsea 2022</a>, p. 3.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003547-202"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003547_202-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, p. 547.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202373-203"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202373_203-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202373_203-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, p. 73.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003548-204"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003548_204-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003548_204-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003548_204-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, p. 548.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202387–88-205"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202387–88_205-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, pp. 87–88.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021167–170-206"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021167–170_206-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLynch2021">Lynch 2021</a>, pp. 167–170.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERybickiWhitaker20201-207"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERybickiWhitaker20201_207-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRybickiWhitaker2020">Rybicki & Whitaker 2020</a>, p. 1.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-NPR_12-23-2022-208"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-NPR_12-23-2022_208-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-NPR_12-23-2022_208-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFParks2022" class="citation news cs1">Parks, Miles (December 23, 2022). <a class="external text" href="https://www.npr.org/2022/12/22/1139951463/electoral-count-act-reform-passes">"Congress passes election reform designed to ward off another Jan. 6"</a>. NPR. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230630093134/https://www.npr.org/2022/12/22/1139951463/electoral-count-act-reform-passes">Archived</a> from the original on June 30, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">July 15,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Congress+passes+election+reform+designed+to+ward+off+another+Jan.+6&rft.date=2022-12-23&rft.aulast=Parks&rft.aufirst=Miles&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2F2022%2F12%2F22%2F1139951463%2Felectoral-count-act-reform-passes&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003560-209"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003560_209-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003560_209-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, p. 560.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a42–43-210"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a42–43_210-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a42–43_210-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a42–43_210-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFGraber2023a">Graber 2023a</a>, pp. 42–43.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003554-211"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003554_211-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, p. 554.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-212"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-212">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLampe2022" class="citation report cs1">Lampe, Joanna R. (June 14, 2022). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10757">The Political Question Doctrine: Historical Background (Part 2)</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230307045614/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10757">Archived</a> from the original on March 7, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 27,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=The+Political+Question+Doctrine%3A+Historical+Background+%28Part+2%29&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2022-06-14&rft.aulast=Lampe&rft.aufirst=Joanna+R.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FLSB%2FLSB10757&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202391-213"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202391_213-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, p. 91.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-214"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-214">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Luther_v._Borden" title="Luther v. Borden">Luther v. Borden</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_48" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 48">48</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/48/1/">1</a> (1849)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202384–85-215"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202384–85_215-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, p. 84–85.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-216"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-216">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Prize_Cases" title="Prize Cases">Prize Cases</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_67" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 67">67</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/67/635/#668–669">635, 668–669</a> (1863)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a40–42-217"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a40–42_217-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFGraber2023a">Graber 2023a</a>, pp. 40–42.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003547,_562-218"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003547,_562_218-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, pp. 547, 562.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-219"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-219">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Martin_v._Mott" title="Martin v. Mott">Martin v. Mott</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_25" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 25">25</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/25/19/">19</a> (1827)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021180–181-220"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021180–181_220-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLynch2021">Lynch 2021</a>, pp. 180–181.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202370–72-221"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202370–72_221-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, pp. 70–72.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202364-222"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202364_222-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, p. 64.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-223"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-223">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Prize_Cases" title="Prize Cases">Prize Cases</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_67" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 67">67</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/67/635/#666">635, 666</a> (1863)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202375–76-224"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202375–76_224-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, pp. 75–76.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202379–84-225"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202379–84_225-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, pp. 79–84.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-226"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-226">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">17 <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Statutes_at_Large" title="United States Statutes at Large">Stat.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://legislink.org/us/stat-17-502">502</a></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-227"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-227">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="/info/en/?search=Public_Law_(United_States)" class="mw-redirect" title="Public Law (United States)"><abbr title="Public Law (United States)">Pub. L.</abbr></a><span class="sr-only" style="border: 0; clip: rect(0, 0, 0, 0); clip-path: polygon(0px 0px, 0px 0px, 0px 0px); height: 1px; margin: -1px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0; position: absolute; width: 1px; white-space: nowrap;">Tooltip Public Law (United States)</span> <a class="external text" href="https://uslaw.link/citation/us-law/public/37/195">37–195</a>, 12 <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Statutes_at_Large" title="United States Statutes at Large">Stat.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://legislink.org/us/stat-12-589">589</a></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202375–76,_87–93-228"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202375–76,_87–93_228-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, pp. 75–76, 87–93.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202390–91-229"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202390–91_229-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, pp. 90–91.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-230"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-230">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/073/0000/00632941.tif">"In Senate: June 4, 1866: Reconstruction"</a>. <i>39th United States Congress</i>. Congressional Globe. June 4, 1866. p. 2941<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">February 1,</span> 2024</span> – via The Library of Congress.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=39th+United+States+Congress&rft.atitle=In+Senate%3A+June+4%2C+1866%3A+Reconstruction&rft.pages=2941&rft.date=1866-06-04&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fmemory.loc.gov%2Fll%2Fllcg%2F073%2F0000%2F00632941.tif&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-231"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-231">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFPortnoy2023" class="citation news cs1">Portnoy, Steven (December 29, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/framers-14th-amendments-disqualification-clause-analysis/story?id=105996364">"What the framers said about the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause: Analysis"</a>. <a href="/info/en/?search=ABC_News" title="ABC News">ABC News</a>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240101184948/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/framers-14th-amendments-disqualification-clause-analysis/story?id=105996364">Archived</a> from the original on January 1, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 2,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=What+the+framers+said+about+the+14th+Amendment%27s+disqualification+clause%3A+Analysis&rft.date=2023-12-29&rft.aulast=Portnoy&rft.aufirst=Steven&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FPolitics%2Fframers-14th-amendments-disqualification-clause-analysis%2Fstory%3Fid%3D105996364&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a50-232"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a50_232-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a50_232-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFGraber2023a">Graber 2023a</a>, p. 50.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021168-233"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021168_233-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLynch2021">Lynch 2021</a>, p. 168.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a13–17-234"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a13–17_234-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFGraber2023a">Graber 2023a</a>, pp. 13–17.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus20234–6-235"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus20234–6_235-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFVlahoplus2023">Vlahoplus 2023</a>, pp. 4–6.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202330,_37–46-236"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202330,_37–46_236-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLash2023">Lash 2023</a>, pp. 30, 37–46.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEElsea20225-237"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20225_237-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20225_237-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFElsea2022">Elsea 2022</a>, p. 5.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202311–16-238"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202311–16_238-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, pp. 11–16.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021178-239"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021178_239-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLynch2021">Lynch 2021</a>, p. 178.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202139–64-240"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202139–64_240-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFMagliocca2021">Magliocca 2021</a>, pp. 39–64.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-CRS_6-1-2022_p._3-241"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-CRS_6-1-2022_p._3_241-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-CRS_6-1-2022_p._3_241-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLampe2022" class="citation report cs1">Lampe, Joanna R. (June 1, 2022). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10750">The Insurrection Bar to Holding Office: Appeals Court Issues Decision on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service. p. 3. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230603102358/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10750">Archived</a> from the original on June 3, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">September 24,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=The+Insurrection+Bar+to+Holding+Office%3A+Appeals+Court+Issues+Decision+on+Section+3+of+the+Fourteenth+Amendment&rft.pages=3&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2022-06-01&rft.aulast=Lampe&rft.aufirst=Joanna+R.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FLSB%2FLSB10750&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen2023112–116-242"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen2023112–116_242-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, pp. 112–116.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen2023116–122-243"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen2023116–122_243-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, pp. 116–122.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a51–53-244"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a51–53_244-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFGraber2023a">Graber 2023a</a>, pp. 51–53.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEElsea20224-245"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20224_245-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20224_245-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20224_245-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFElsea2022">Elsea 2022</a>, p. 4.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-246"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-246">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Cramer_v._United_States" title="Cramer v. United States">Cramer v. United States</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_325" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 325">325</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/325/1/">1</a> (1945)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-247"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-247">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>Haupt v. United States</i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_330" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 330">330</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/330/631/">631</a> (1947)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021170–178-248"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021170–178_248-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLynch2021">Lynch 2021</a>, pp. 170–178.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-249"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-249">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Cramer_v._United_States" title="Cramer v. United States">Cramer v. United States</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_325" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 325">325</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/325/1/#76">1, 76</a> (1945)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202385-250"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202385_250-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, p. 85.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-251"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-251">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Prize_Cases" title="Prize Cases">Prize Cases</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_67" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 67">67</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/67/635/#669">635, 669</a> (1863)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003467-252"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003467_252-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, p. 467.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-253"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-253">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp">"The Avalon Project – Federalist No 78"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Avalon_Project" title="Avalon Project">Avalon Project</a></i>. <a href="/info/en/?search=New_Haven,_Connecticut" title="New Haven, Connecticut">New Haven, CT</a>: <a href="/info/en/?search=Yale_Law_School" title="Yale Law School">Yale Law School</a>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231225111129/https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp">Archived</a> from the original on December 25, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 27,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Avalon+Project&rft.atitle=The+Avalon+Project+%E2%80%93+Federalist+No+78&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Favalon.law.yale.edu%2F18th_century%2Ffed78.asp&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-254"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-254">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Chisholm_v._Georgia" title="Chisholm v. Georgia">Chisholm v. Georgia</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_2" class="mw-redirect" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 2">2</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/419/">419</a> (1793)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-255"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-255">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Hollingsworth_v._Virginia" title="Hollingsworth v. Virginia">Hollingsworth v. Virginia</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_3" class="mw-redirect" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 3">3</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/3/378/">378</a> (1798)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202349–61-256"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202349–61_256-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202349–61_256-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, pp. 49–61.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202367–68-257"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202367–68_257-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, pp. 67–68.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202394–95-258"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202394–95_258-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, pp. 94–95.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021197–200-259"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021197–200_259-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLynch2021">Lynch 2021</a>, pp. 197–200.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a49-260"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a49_260-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFGraber2023a">Graber 2023a</a>, p. 49.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202376–79-261"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202376–79_261-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, pp. 76–79.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202396–97-262"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202396–97_262-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, pp. 96–97.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a47–48-263"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a47–48_263-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFGraber2023a">Graber 2023a</a>, pp. 47–48.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021201-264"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021201_264-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLynch2021">Lynch 2021</a>, p. 201.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202360–61-265"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202360–61_265-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202360–61_265-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, pp. 60–61.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a16,_50-266"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a16,_50_266-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFGraber2023a">Graber 2023a</a>, pp. 16, 50.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021210–213-267"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021210–213_267-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLynch2021">Lynch 2021</a>, pp. 210–213.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-268"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-268">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Berger_v._United_States" title="Berger v. United States">Berger v. United States</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_255" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 255">255</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/255/22/">22</a> (1921)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021213–214-269"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021213–214_269-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021213–214_269-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLynch2021">Lynch 2021</a>, pp. 213–214.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a16-270"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a16_270-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFGraber2023a">Graber 2023a</a>, p. 16.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2023155–184-272"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2023155–184_272-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBlackmanTillman2023">Blackman & Tillman 2023</a>, pp. 155–184.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-USC_Title_18_Section_2383-273"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-USC_Title_18_Section_2383_273-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-USC_Title_18_Section_2383_273-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="/info/en/?search=Title_18_of_the_United_States_Code" title="Title 18 of the United States Code">18 U.S.C.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383">§ 2383</a></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-auto-275"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-auto_275-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-auto_275-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="/info/en/?search=Title_18_of_the_United_States_Code" title="Title 18 of the United States Code">18 U.S.C.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381">§ 2381</a></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEElsea20223–4-276"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20223–4_276-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20223–4_276-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFElsea2022">Elsea 2022</a>, pp. 3–4.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021181-277"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021181_277-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLynch2021">Lynch 2021</a>, p. 181.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-278"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-278">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">18 <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Statutes_at_Large" title="United States Statutes at Large">Stat.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://legislink.org/us/stat-18-1036">1036</a></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-279"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-279">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">35 <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Statutes_at_Large" title="United States Statutes at Large">Stat.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://legislink.org/us/stat-35-1088">1088</a></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-280"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-280">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">62 <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Statutes_at_Large" title="United States Statutes at Large">Stat.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://legislink.org/us/stat-62-808">808</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=Title_18_of_the_United_States_Code" title="Title 18 of the United States Code">18 U.S.C.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383">§ 2383</a>; Second Confiscation Act included in the <i><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Statutes_at_Large" title="United States Statutes at Large">United States Statutes at Large</a></i> at 12 <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Statutes_at_Large" title="United States Statutes at Large">Stat.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://legislink.org/us/stat-12-589">589</a></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003562-281"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003562_281-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, p. 562.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-283"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-283">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">Crimes Act of 1790, 1 <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Statutes_at_Large" title="United States Statutes at Large">Stat.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://legislink.org/us/stat-1-112">112</a>; Second Confiscation Act, 12 <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Statutes_at_Large" title="United States Statutes at Large">Stat.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://legislink.org/us/stat-12-589">589</a>; Revised Statutes codification, 18 <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Statutes_at_Large" title="United States Statutes at Large">Stat.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://legislink.org/us/stat-18-1036">1036</a>; 1909 federal penal statutes codification, 35 <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Statutes_at_Large" title="United States Statutes at Large">Stat.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://legislink.org/us/stat-35-1088">1088</a>; U.S. Code codification, 62 <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Statutes_at_Large" title="United States Statutes at Large">Stat.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://legislink.org/us/stat-62-807">807</a></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-285"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-285">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Ex_parte_Bollman" title="Ex parte Bollman">Ex parte Bollman</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_8" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 8">8</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/8/75/#126">75, 126</a> (1807)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-286"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-286">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Prize_Cases" title="Prize Cases">Prize Cases</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_67" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 67">67</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/67/635/#673">635, 673</a> (1863)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-287"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-287">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>United States v. Vigol</i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_2" class="mw-redirect" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 2">2</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/346/">346</a> (1795)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-288"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-288">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>United States v. Mitchell I</i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_2" class="mw-redirect" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 2">2</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/348/">348</a> (1795)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-289"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-289">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Ex_parte_Vallandigham" title="Ex parte Vallandigham">Ex parte Vallandigham</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_68" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 68">68</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/68/24/">24</a> (1864)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a24–40-290"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a24–40_290-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFGraber2023a">Graber 2023a</a>, pp. 24–40.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a44–51-291"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a44–51_291-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFGraber2023a">Graber 2023a</a>, pp. 44–51.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-292"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-292">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Brandenburg_v._Ohio" title="Brandenburg v. Ohio">Brandenburg v. Ohio</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_395" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 395">395</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/">444</a> (1969)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-293"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-293">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test">"Brandenburg test – Wex – US Law"</a>. <i>Legal Information Institute</i>. Cornell Law School. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20220711140412/https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test">Archived</a> from the original on July 11, 2022<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 9,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Legal+Information+Institute&rft.atitle=Brandenburg+test+%E2%80%93+Wex+%E2%80%93+US+Law&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.cornell.edu%2Fwex%2Fbrandenburg_test&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-294"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-294">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFKillion2019" class="citation report cs1">Killion, Victoria L. (January 16, 2019). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11072">The First Amendment: Categories of Speech</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service. p. 2. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240109221613/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11072">Archived</a> from the original on January 9, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 9,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=The+First+Amendment%3A+Categories+of+Speech&rft.pages=2&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2019-01-16&rft.aulast=Killion&rft.aufirst=Victoria+L.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FIF%2FIF11072&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-295"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-295">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFSegarra2022" class="citation news cs1">Segarra, Curtis (November 15, 2022). <a class="external text" href="https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/end-of-the-road-couy-griffins-appeal-dismissed-by-nm-supreme-court/">"End of the road? Couy Griffin's appeal dismissed by NM Supreme Court"</a>. <a href="/info/en/?search=KRQE" title="KRQE">KRQE</a>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231230182106/https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/end-of-the-road-couy-griffins-appeal-dismissed-by-nm-supreme-court/">Archived</a> from the original on December 30, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 23,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=End+of+the+road%3F+Couy+Griffin%27s+appeal+dismissed+by+NM+Supreme+Court&rft.date=2022-11-15&rft.aulast=Segarra&rft.aufirst=Curtis&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.krqe.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics-government%2Fend-of-the-road-couy-griffins-appeal-dismissed-by-nm-supreme-court%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-296"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-296">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLybrandRabinowitzPolantz2022" class="citation news cs1">Lybrand, Holmes; Rabinowitz, Hannah; Polantz, Katelyn (March 22, 2022). <a class="external text" href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/22/politics/couy-griffin-verdict-january-6-trial/index.html">"Judge finds January 6 defendant guilty of trespassing on Capitol grounds"</a>. CNN. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20220630062502/https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/22/politics/couy-griffin-verdict-january-6-trial/index.html">Archived</a> from the original on June 30, 2022<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">July 8,</span> 2022</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Judge+finds+January+6+defendant+guilty+of+trespassing+on+Capitol+grounds&rft.date=2022-03-22&rft.aulast=Lybrand&rft.aufirst=Holmes&rft.au=Rabinowitz%2C+Hannah&rft.au=Polantz%2C+Katelyn&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2022%2F03%2F22%2Fpolitics%2Fcouy-griffin-verdict-january-6-trial%2Findex.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-297"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-297">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFRabinowitzLybrandBronstein2022" class="citation news cs1">Rabinowitz, Hannah; Lybrand, Holmes; Bronstein, Scott (September 6, 2022). <a class="external text" href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/06/politics/couy-griffin-new-mexico-january-6/index.html">"New Mexico county commissioner removed from elected office for role in US Capitol riot"</a>. CNN. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20220925223950/https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/06/politics/couy-griffin-new-mexico-january-6/index.html">Archived</a> from the original on September 25, 2022<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 27,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=New+Mexico+county+commissioner+removed+from+elected+office+for+role+in+US+Capitol+riot&rft.date=2022-09-06&rft.aulast=Rabinowitz&rft.aufirst=Hannah&rft.au=Lybrand%2C+Holmes&rft.au=Bronstein%2C+Scott&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2022%2F09%2F06%2Fpolitics%2Fcouy-griffin-new-mexico-january-6%2Findex.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-298"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-298">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFUpchurch2023" class="citation news cs1">Upchurch, Marilyn (February 18, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/new-mexico-supreme-court-maintains-couy-griffin-office-removal/">"New Mexico Supreme Court maintains Couy Griffin office removal"</a>. KRQE. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230414204101/https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/new-mexico-supreme-court-maintains-couy-griffin-office-removal/">Archived</a> from the original on April 14, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">April 14,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=New+Mexico+Supreme+Court+maintains+Couy+Griffin+office+removal&rft.date=2023-02-18&rft.aulast=Upchurch&rft.aufirst=Marilyn&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.krqe.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics-government%2Fnew-mexico-supreme-court-maintains-couy-griffin-office-removal%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-299"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-299">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLeeRiccardiSherman2024" class="citation web cs1">Lee, Morgan; Riccardi, Nicholas; Sherman, Mark (March 18, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-jan-6-official_n_65f84320e4b030e8357ac88e">"Supreme Court Rejects Appeal By Former Official Banned For Jan. 6 Insurrection"</a>. <i>HuffPost</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">March 18,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=HuffPost&rft.atitle=Supreme+Court+Rejects+Appeal+By+Former+Official+Banned+For+Jan.+6+Insurrection&rft.date=2024-03-18&rft.aulast=Lee&rft.aufirst=Morgan&rft.au=Riccardi%2C+Nicholas&rft.au=Sherman%2C+Mark&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Fsupreme-court-jan-6-official_n_65f84320e4b030e8357ac88e&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-300"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-300">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFParloff2022" class="citation web cs1">Parloff, Roger (December 8, 2022). <a class="external text" href="https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/crucial-appeal-capitol-riot-prosecutions-dc-circuit-hear-arguments-challenging-felony-charge-used">"A Crucial Appeal for Capitol Riot Prosecutions: D.C. Circuit to Hear Arguments Challenging the Felony Charge Used in 290 Cases"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Lawfare_(website)" title="Lawfare (website)">Lawfare</a></i>. Brookings Institution/Lawfare Institute<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 26,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Lawfare&rft.atitle=A+Crucial+Appeal+for+Capitol+Riot+Prosecutions%3A+D.C.+Circuit+to+Hear+Arguments+Challenging+the+Felony+Charge+Used+in+290+Cases&rft.date=2022-12-08&rft.aulast=Parloff&rft.aufirst=Roger&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawfaremedia.org%2Farticle%2Fcrucial-appeal-capitol-riot-prosecutions-dc-circuit-hear-arguments-challenging-felony-charge-used&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-301"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-301">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFSherman2023" class="citation news cs1">Sherman, Mark (December 13, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab">"Supreme Court will hear a case that could undo Capitol riot charge against hundreds, including Trump"</a>. Associated Press. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231213144703/https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab">Archived</a> from the original on December 13, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 13,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Supreme+Court+will+hear+a+case+that+could+undo+Capitol+riot+charge+against+hundreds%2C+including+Trump&rft.date=2023-12-13&rft.aulast=Sherman&rft.aufirst=Mark&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fapnews.com%2Farticle%2Fsupreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-302"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-302">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFHsuJackmanWeiner2022" class="citation news cs1">Hsu, Spencer S.; Jackman, Tom; Weiner, Rachel (March 8, 2022). <a class="external text" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/03/08/judge-tosses-jan-6-obstruction-charge/">"U.S. judge dismisses lead federal charge against Jan. 6 Capitol riot defendant"</a>. <i>The Washington Post</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230331085116/https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/03/08/judge-tosses-jan-6-obstruction-charge/">Archived</a> from the original on March 31, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">April 7,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Washington+Post&rft.atitle=U.S.+judge+dismisses+lead+federal+charge+against+Jan.+6+Capitol+riot+defendant&rft.date=2022-03-08&rft.aulast=Hsu&rft.aufirst=Spencer+S.&rft.au=Jackman%2C+Tom&rft.au=Weiner%2C+Rachel&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fdc-md-va%2F2022%2F03%2F08%2Fjudge-tosses-jan-6-obstruction-charge%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBerris20232–3-303"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBerris20232–3_303-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBerris2023">Berris 2023</a>, pp. 2–3.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-304"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-304">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFDoyle2010" class="citation report cs1">Doyle, Charles (November 5, 2010). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL34304">Obstruction of Congress: A Brief Overview of Federal Law Relating to Interference with Congressional Activities</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service. pp. 15–18. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231230182129/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL34304">Archived</a> from the original on December 30, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 27,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Obstruction+of+Congress%3A+A+Brief+Overview+of+Federal+Law+Relating+to+Interference+with+Congressional+Activities&rft.pages=15-18&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2010-11-05&rft.aulast=Doyle&rft.aufirst=Charles&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FRL%2FRL34304&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003555-305"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003555_305-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, p. 555.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202317–35-306"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202317–35_306-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, pp. 17–35.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003550–551-309"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003550–551_309-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003550–551_309-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, pp. 550–551.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202317–18-311"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202317–18_311-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, pp. 17–18.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003565–566-313"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003565–566_313-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, pp. 565–566.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202320–21-319"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202320–21_319-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, pp. 20–21.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202335–49-320"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202335–49_320-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, pp. 35–49.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202335–36-321"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202335–36_321-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, pp. 35–36.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202353–133-322"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202353–133_322-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBlackmanTillman2023">Blackman & Tillman 2023</a>, pp. 53–133.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2023133–155-323"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman2023133–155_323-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBlackmanTillman2023">Blackman & Tillman 2023</a>, pp. 133–155.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202120–21-324"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202120–21_324-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFMagliocca2021">Magliocca 2021</a>, pp. 20–21.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti201720–21,_164-325"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti201720–21,_164_325-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNicoletti2017">Nicoletti 2017</a>, pp. 20–21, 164.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017137–152-326"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017137–152_326-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNicoletti2017">Nicoletti 2017</a>, pp. 137–152.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017164–171,_195–198-328"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017164–171,_195–198_328-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNicoletti2017">Nicoletti 2017</a>, pp. 164–171, 195–198.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017198–199-329"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017198–199_329-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNicoletti2017">Nicoletti 2017</a>, pp. 198–199.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017199–200-330"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017199–200_330-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNicoletti2017">Nicoletti 2017</a>, pp. 199–200.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017200–201-331"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017200–201_331-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNicoletti2017">Nicoletti 2017</a>, pp. 200–201.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017153–164,_308–309-332"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017153–164,_308–309_332-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNicoletti2017">Nicoletti 2017</a>, pp. 153–164, 308–309.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017193–194,_201-333"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017193–194,_201_333-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNicoletti2017">Nicoletti 2017</a>, pp. 193–194, 201.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017164–171-334"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017164–171_334-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNicoletti2017">Nicoletti 2017</a>, pp. 164–171.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017280-335"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017280_335-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNicoletti2017">Nicoletti 2017</a>, p. 280.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017266–270-336"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017266–270_336-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNicoletti2017">Nicoletti 2017</a>, pp. 266–270.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017192–195,_293-337"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017192–195,_293_337-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNicoletti2017">Nicoletti 2017</a>, pp. 192–195, 293.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017204,_294–296-338"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017204,_294–296_338-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNicoletti2017">Nicoletti 2017</a>, pp. 204, 294–296.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017296-339"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017296_339-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNicoletti2017">Nicoletti 2017</a>, p. 296.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202121–24-340"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202121–24_340-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFMagliocca2021">Magliocca 2021</a>, pp. 21–24.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017296–299-341"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017296–299_341-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNicoletti2017">Nicoletti 2017</a>, pp. 296–299.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202124-342"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202124_342-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFMagliocca2021">Magliocca 2021</a>, p. 24.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017299–300-343"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017299–300_343-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNicoletti2017">Nicoletti 2017</a>, pp. 299–300.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti201732–38-344"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti201732–38_344-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNicoletti2017">Nicoletti 2017</a>, pp. 32–38.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017299-345"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti2017299_345-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNicoletti2017">Nicoletti 2017</a>, p. 299.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENicoletti20176–7,_266–276-346"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENicoletti20176–7,_266–276_346-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNicoletti2017">Nicoletti 2017</a>, pp. 6–7, 266–276.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEMagliocca20212,_64–68-347"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMagliocca20212,_64–68_347-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFMagliocca2021">Magliocca 2021</a>, pp. 2, 64–68.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus202310-348"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEVlahoplus202310_348-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFVlahoplus2023">Vlahoplus 2023</a>, p. 10.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-349"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-349">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Ex_parte_Garland" title="Ex parte Garland">Ex parte Garland</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_71" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 71">71</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/71/333/#380–381">333, 380–381</a> (1867)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-350"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-350">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Burdick_v._United_States" title="Burdick v. United States">Burdick v. United States</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_236" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 236">236</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/236/79/#94">79, 94</a> (1915)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-351"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-351">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFFoster2020" class="citation report cs1">Foster, Michael A. (January 14, 2020). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46179">Presidential Pardons: Overview and Selected Legal Issues</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service. pp. 11–13. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231030111631/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46179">Archived</a> from the original on October 30, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 3,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Presidential+Pardons%3A+Overview+and+Selected+Legal+Issues&rft.pages=11-13&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2020-01-14&rft.aulast=Foster&rft.aufirst=Michael+A.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FR%2FR46179&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202124–29-352"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202124–29_352-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFMagliocca2021">Magliocca 2021</a>, pp. 24–29.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021203–206-353"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021203–206_353-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLynch2021">Lynch 2021</a>, pp. 203–206.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a11-354"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a11_354-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a11_354-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFGraber2023a">Graber 2023a</a>, p. 11.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-355"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-355">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/072/0600/06262544.tif">"In Senate: May 10, 1866: Reconstruction"</a>. <i>39th United States Congress</i>. Congressional Globe. May 10, 1866. p. 2544<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">February 7,</span> 2024</span> – via The Library of Congress.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=39th+United+States+Congress&rft.atitle=In+Senate%3A+May+10%2C+1866%3A+Reconstruction&rft.pages=2544&rft.date=1866-05-10&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fmemory.loc.gov%2Fll%2Fllcg%2F072%2F0600%2F06262544.tif&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202327–28-356"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202327–28_356-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLash2023">Lash 2023</a>, pp. 27–28.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202350–51,_55–56-357"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202350–51,_55–56_357-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLash2023">Lash 2023</a>, pp. 50–51, 55–56.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202354–55-358"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202354–55_358-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLash2023">Lash 2023</a>, pp. 54–55.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELash202355–56-359"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELash202355–56_359-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLash2023">Lash 2023</a>, pp. 55–56.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202129–34-360"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202129–34_360-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFMagliocca2021">Magliocca 2021</a>, pp. 29–34.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a7–12-361"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a7–12_361-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a7–12_361-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFGraber2023a">Graber 2023a</a>, pp. 7–12.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-362"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-362">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>Durousseau v. United States</i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_10" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 10">10</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/10/307/">307</a> (1810)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-363"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-363">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Ex_parte_McCardle" title="Ex parte McCardle">Ex parte McCardle</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_74" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 74">74</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/506/">506</a> (1869)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202320–22-364"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202320–22_364-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBlackmanTillman2023">Blackman & Tillman 2023</a>, pp. 20–22.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-365"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-365">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>Wiscart v. D'Auchy</i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_3" class="mw-redirect" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 3">3</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/3/321/">321</a> (1796)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-366"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-366">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Turner_v._Bank_of_North_America" title="Turner v. Bank of North America">Turner v. Bank of North America</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_4" class="mw-redirect" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 4">4</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/4/8/">8</a> (1799)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-367"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-367">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>Barry v. Mercein</i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_46" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 46">46</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/46/103/">103</a> (1847)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-368"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-368">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>Daniels v. Railroad Co.</i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_70" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 70">70</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/70/250/">250</a> (1865)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-369"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-369">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>The Francis Wright</i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_105" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 105">105</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/105/381/">381</a> (1881)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202322–26-370"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202322–26_370-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBlackmanTillman2023">Blackman & Tillman 2023</a>, pp. 22–26.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202327–31-371"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202327–31_371-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBlackmanTillman2023">Blackman & Tillman 2023</a>, pp. 27–31.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202331–34-372"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202331–34_372-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBlackmanTillman2023">Blackman & Tillman 2023</a>, pp. 31–34.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202334–36-373"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202334–36_373-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBlackmanTillman2023">Blackman & Tillman 2023</a>, pp. 34–36.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-374"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-374">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFBeito2023" class="citation web cs1">Beito, David T. (September 1, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14659">"The Fourteenth Amendment Case Against Trump Disregards Both History and Precedent"</a>. <a href="/info/en/?search=Independent_Institute" title="Independent Institute">Independent Institute</a>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231221231049/https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14659">Archived</a> from the original on December 21, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 28,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=The+Fourteenth+Amendment+Case+Against+Trump+Disregards+Both+History+and+Precedent&rft.pub=Independent+Institute&rft.date=2023-09-01&rft.aulast=Beito&rft.aufirst=David+T.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.org%2Fnews%2Farticle.asp%3Fid%3D14659&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Southwick-375"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Southwick_375-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Southwick_375-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFSouthwick2008" class="citation book cs1"><a href="/info/en/?search=Leslie_H._Southwick" title="Leslie H. Southwick">Southwick, Leslie H.</a> (2008) [1998]. <i>Presidential Also-Rans and Running Mates, 1788 through 1996: Volume 2</i> (2nd ed.). <a href="/info/en/?search=Jefferson,_North_Carolina" title="Jefferson, North Carolina">Jefferson, NC</a>: <a href="/info/en/?search=McFarland_%26_Company" title="McFarland & Company">McFarland & Company</a>. pp. 451–452, 493–494. <a href="/info/en/?search=ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Special:BookSources/978-0786438914" title="Special:BookSources/978-0786438914"><bdi>978-0786438914</bdi></a>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Presidential+Also-Rans+and+Running+Mates%2C+1788+through+1996%3A+Volume+2&rft.place=Jefferson%2C+NC&rft.pages=451-452%2C+493-494&rft.edition=2nd&rft.pub=McFarland+%26+Company&rft.date=2008&rft.isbn=978-0786438914&rft.aulast=Southwick&rft.aufirst=Leslie+H.&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-376"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-376">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Debs_v._United_States" title="Debs v. United States">Debs v. United States</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_249" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 249">249</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/249/211/">211</a> (1919)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202322-377"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202322_377-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, p. 22.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-378"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-378">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Slaughter-House_Cases" title="Slaughter-House Cases">Slaughter-House Cases</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_83" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 83">83</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/36/">36</a> (1873)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-379"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-379">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Bradwell_v._Illinois" title="Bradwell v. Illinois">Bradwell v. Illinois</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_83" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 83">83</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/130/">130</a> (1873)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-380"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-380">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_v._Cruikshank" title="United States v. Cruikshank">United States v. Cruikshank</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_92" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 92">92</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/">542</a> (1876)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-381"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-381">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Plessy_v._Ferguson" title="Plessy v. Ferguson">Plessy v. Ferguson</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_163" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 163">163</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/537/">537</a> (1896)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-382"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-382">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Ex_parte_Young" title="Ex parte Young">Ex parte Young</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_209" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 209">209</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/123/">123</a> (1908)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-383"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-383">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Bivens_v._Six_Unknown_Named_Agents" title="Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents">Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_403" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 403">403</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/388/">388</a> (1971)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202338–53-384"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202338–53_384-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBlackmanTillman2023">Blackman & Tillman 2023</a>, pp. 38–53.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202319-385"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202319_385-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, p. 19.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-386"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-386">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Shelley_v._Kraemer" title="Shelley v. Kraemer">Shelley v. Kraemer</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_334" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 334">334</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/334/1/">1</a> (1948)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Brown_v._Board_of_Education-387"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Brown_v._Board_of_Education_387-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Brown_v._Board_of_Education_387-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Brown_v._Board_of_Education" title="Brown v. Board of Education">Brown v. Board of Education</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_347" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 347">347</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/483/">483</a> (1954)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Roe_v._Wade-388"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Roe_v._Wade_388-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Roe_v._Wade_388-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Roe_v._Wade" title="Roe v. Wade">Roe v. Wade</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_410" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 410">410</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/">113</a> (1973)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Obergefell_v._Hodges-389"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Obergefell_v._Hodges_389-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Obergefell_v._Hodges_389-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Obergefell_v._Hodges" title="Obergefell v. Hodges">Obergefell v. Hodges</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_576" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 576">576</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/644/">644</a> (2015)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202339,_46-390"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBlackmanTillman202339,_46_390-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBlackmanTillman2023">Blackman & Tillman 2023</a>, pp. 39, 46.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-391"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-391">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="/info/en/?search=Title_42_of_the_United_States_Code" title="Title 42 of the United States Code">42 U.S.C.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983">§ 1983</a>, 16 <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Statutes_at_Large" title="United States Statutes at Large">Stat.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://legislink.org/us/stat-16-433">433</a></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-392"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-392">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Shelley_v._Kraemer" title="Shelley v. Kraemer">Shelley v. Kraemer</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_334" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 334">334</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/334/1/#11">1, 11</a> (1948)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-393"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-393">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">16 <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Statutes_at_Large" title="United States Statutes at Large">Stat.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://legislink.org/us/stat-16-140">140</a></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202130-395"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMagliocca202130_395-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFMagliocca2021">Magliocca 2021</a>, p. 30.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-396"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-396">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>Ex parte Virginia</i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_100" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 100">100</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/100/339/#345">339, 345</a> (1880)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-397"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-397">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=City_of_Boerne_v._Flores" title="City of Boerne v. Flores">City of Boerne v. Flores</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_521" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 521">521</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/507/">507</a> (1997)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021206–207-398"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021206–207_398-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLynch2021">Lynch 2021</a>, pp. 206–207.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-399"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-399">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Civil_Rights_Cases" title="Civil Rights Cases">Civil Rights Cases</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_109" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 109">109</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/109/3/#20">3, 20</a> (1883)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021194–195-400"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021194–195_400-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLynch2021">Lynch 2021</a>, pp. 194–195.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-401"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-401">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Powell_v._McCormack" title="Powell v. McCormack">Powell v. McCormack</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_395" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 395">395</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/486/#544–545">486, 544–545</a> (1969)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-402"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-402">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Powell_v._McCormack" title="Powell v. McCormack">Powell v. McCormack</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_395" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 395">395</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/486/#518–550">486, 518–550</a> (1969)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-CRS_8-12-2002-403"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-CRS_8-12-2002_403-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-CRS_8-12-2002_403-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMaskell2002" class="citation report cs1">Maskell, Jack (August 12, 2002). <a class="external text" href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL31532.pdf">Congressional Candidacy, Incarceration, and the Constitution's Inhabitancy Qualification</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span>. <i>Federation of American Scientists</i> (Report). Congressional Research Service. p. 3. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231208222400/https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL31532.pdf">Archived</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span> from the original on December 8, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">October 11,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Congressional+Candidacy%2C+Incarceration%2C+and+the+Constitution%27s+Inhabitancy+Qualification&rft.pages=3&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2002-08-12&rft.aulast=Maskell&rft.aufirst=Jack&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fsgp.fas.org%2Fcrs%2Fmisc%2FRL31532.pdf&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-404"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-404">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/073/0000/00402918.tif">"In Senate: May 31, 1866: Reconstruction"</a>. <i>39th United States Congress</i>. Congressional Globe. May 31, 1866. p. 2918<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">February 1,</span> 2024</span> – via The Library of Congress.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=39th+United+States+Congress&rft.atitle=In+Senate%3A+May+31%2C+1866%3A+Reconstruction&rft.pages=2918&rft.date=1866-05-31&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fmemory.loc.gov%2Fll%2Fllcg%2F073%2F0000%2F00402918.tif&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-405"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-405">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/073/0000/00382916.tif">"In Senate: May 31, 1866: Reconstruction"</a>. <i>39th United States Congress</i>. Congressional Globe. May 31, 1866. p. 2916<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">February 1,</span> 2024</span> – via The Library of Congress.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=39th+United+States+Congress&rft.atitle=In+Senate%3A+May+31%2C+1866%3A+Reconstruction&rft.pages=2916&rft.date=1866-05-31&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fmemory.loc.gov%2Fll%2Fllcg%2F073%2F0000%2F00382916.tif&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-406"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-406">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/073/0100/01583036.tif">"In Senate: June 8, 1866: Reconstruction"</a>. <i>39th United States Congress</i>. Congressional Globe. June 8, 1866. p. 3036<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">February 1,</span> 2024</span> – via The Library of Congress.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=39th+United+States+Congress&rft.atitle=In+Senate%3A+June+8%2C+1866%3A+Reconstruction&rft.pages=3036&rft.date=1866-06-08&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fmemory.loc.gov%2Fll%2Fllcg%2F073%2F0100%2F01583036.tif&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a12–13-407"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGraber2023a12–13_407-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFGraber2023a">Graber 2023a</a>, pp. 12–13.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003548–549-408"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003548–549_408-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, pp. 548–549.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003559-409"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003559_409-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003559_409-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, p. 559.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-410"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-410">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Taylor_v._Beckham" title="Taylor v. Beckham">Taylor v. Beckham</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_178" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 178">178</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/178/548/#577">548, 577</a> (1900)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202356–57-411"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202356–57_411-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, pp. 56–57.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-412"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-412">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/34/enacted">"House of Lords Act 1999"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Legislation.gov.uk" title="Legislation.gov.uk">legislation.gov.uk</a></i>. <a href="/info/en/?search=The_National_Archives_(United_Kingdom)" title="The National Archives (United Kingdom)">The National Archives</a><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 16,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=legislation.gov.uk&rft.atitle=House+of+Lords+Act+1999&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.legislation.gov.uk%2Fukpga%2F1999%2F34%2Fenacted&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-413"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-413">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/publications-records/House-of-Lords-Publications/Rules-guides-for-business/Standing-order-public-business/Standing-Orders-Public.pdf">"Standing Orders of the House of Lords – Public Business"</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span>. <i>parliament.uk</i>. <a href="/info/en/?search=Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom" title="Parliament of the United Kingdom">Parliament of the United Kingdom</a>. February 22, 2021. pp. 3–4<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 16,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=parliament.uk&rft.atitle=Standing+Orders+of+the+House+of+Lords+%E2%80%93+Public+Business&rft.pages=3-4&rft.date=2021-02-22&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.parliament.uk%2Fglobalassets%2Fdocuments%2Fpublications-records%2FHouse-of-Lords-Publications%2FRules-guides-for-business%2FStanding-order-public-business%2FStanding-Orders-Public.pdf&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEAmado202219-415"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEAmado202219_415-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFAmado2022">Amado 2022</a>, p. 19.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-416"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-416">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Snowden_v._Hughes" title="Snowden v. Hughes">Snowden v. Hughes</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_321" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 321">321</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/321/1/#7">1, 7</a> (1944)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003554,_561-417"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003554,_561_417-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, pp. 554, 561.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202353–54-418"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202353–54_418-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, pp. 53–54.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-419"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-419">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Ex_parte_Garland" title="Ex parte Garland">Ex parte Garland</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_71" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 71">71</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/71/333/#378">333, 378</a> (1867)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-420"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-420">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>Cummings v. Missouri</i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_71" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 71">71</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/71/277/#319">277, 319</a> (1867)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEColeGarvey20237–9,_42–43-421"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEColeGarvey20237–9,_42–43_421-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFColeGarvey2023">Cole & Garvey 2023</a>, pp. 7–9, 42–43.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEColeGarvey202314–15-422"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEColeGarvey202314–15_422-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEColeGarvey202314–15_422-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFColeGarvey2023">Cole & Garvey 2023</a>, pp. 14–15.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-423"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-423">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLampe2022" class="citation report cs1">Lampe, Joanna R. (June 14, 2022). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10760">The Political Question Doctrine: Congressional Governance and Impeachment as Political Questions (Part 5)</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230307045628/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10760">Archived</a> from the original on March 7, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 27,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=The+Political+Question+Doctrine%3A+Congressional+Governance+and+Impeachment+as+Political+Questions+%28Part+5%29&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2022-06-14&rft.aulast=Lampe&rft.aufirst=Joanna+R.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FLSB%2FLSB10760&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-424"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-424">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Nixon_v._United_States" title="Nixon v. United States">Nixon v. United States</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_506" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 506">506</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/506/224/">224</a> (1993)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-425"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-425">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMoss2000" class="citation report cs1 cs1-prop-long-vol"><a href="/info/en/?search=Randolph_Moss" title="Randolph Moss">Moss, Randolph D.</a> (August 18, 2000). <a class="external text" href="https://www.justice.gov/d9/olc/opinions/2000/08/31/op-olc-v024-p0110_0.pdf">Whether a Former President May Be Indicted and Tried for the Same Offenses for Which He Was Impeached by the House and Acquitted by the Senate</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span> (Report). Vol. 24, Opinions. Office of Legal Counsel. pp. 110–155. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231217060425/https://www.justice.gov/d9/olc/opinions/2000/08/31/op-olc-v024-p0110_0.pdf">Archived</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span> from the original on December 17, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 3,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Whether+a+Former+President+May+Be+Indicted+and+Tried+for+the+Same+Offenses+for+Which+He+Was+Impeached+by+the+House+and+Acquitted+by+the+Senate&rft.pages=110-155&rft.pub=Office+of+Legal+Counsel&rft.date=2000-08-18&rft.aulast=Moss&rft.aufirst=Randolph+D.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.justice.gov%2Fd9%2Folc%2Fopinions%2F2000%2F08%2F31%2Fop-olc-v024-p0110_0.pdf&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-426"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-426">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFTaylor2019" class="citation news cs1">Taylor, Jessica (November 18, 2019). <a class="external text" href="https://www.npr.org/2019/11/18/779938819/fractured-into-factions-what-the-founders-feared-about-impeachment">"Fractured Into Factions? What The Founders Feared About Impeachment"</a>. NPR. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20220529040411/https://www.npr.org/2019/11/18/779938819/fractured-into-factions-what-the-founders-feared-about-impeachment">Archived</a> from the original on May 29, 2022<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">June 14,</span> 2022</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Fractured+Into+Factions%3F+What+The+Founders+Feared+About+Impeachment&rft.date=2019-11-18&rft.aulast=Taylor&rft.aufirst=Jessica&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2F2019%2F11%2F18%2F779938819%2Ffractured-into-factions-what-the-founders-feared-about-impeachment&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-427"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-427">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFChernow2019" class="citation news cs1"><a href="/info/en/?search=Ron_Chernow" title="Ron Chernow">Chernow, Ron</a> (October 18, 2019). <a class="external text" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/10/18/hamilton-pushed-impeachment-powers-trump-is-what-he-had-mind/">"Hamilton pushed for impeachment powers. Trump is what he had in mind"</a>. <i>The Washington Post</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20220212022753/https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/10/18/hamilton-pushed-impeachment-powers-trump-is-what-he-had-mind/">Archived</a> from the original on February 12, 2022<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">June 16,</span> 2022</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Washington+Post&rft.atitle=Hamilton+pushed+for+impeachment+powers.+Trump+is+what+he+had+in+mind.&rft.date=2019-10-18&rft.aulast=Chernow&rft.aufirst=Ron&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Foutlook%2F2019%2F10%2F18%2Fhamilton-pushed-impeachment-powers-trump-is-what-he-had-mind%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003394–399-428"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003394–399_428-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, pp. 394–399.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-429"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-429">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp">"The Avalon Project – Federalist No 65"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Avalon_Project" title="Avalon Project">Avalon Project</a></i>. <a href="/info/en/?search=New_Haven,_Connecticut" title="New Haven, Connecticut">New Haven, CT</a>: <a href="/info/en/?search=Yale_Law_School" title="Yale Law School">Yale Law School</a>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231230182106/https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp">Archived</a> from the original on December 30, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 27,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Avalon+Project&rft.atitle=The+Avalon+Project+%E2%80%93+Federalist+No+65&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Favalon.law.yale.edu%2F18th_century%2Ffed65.asp&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEElsea20224–5-430"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20224–5_430-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElsea20224–5_430-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFElsea2022">Elsea 2022</a>, pp. 4–5.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEMagliocca20213,_34–38-431"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEMagliocca20213,_34–38_431-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFMagliocca2021">Magliocca 2021</a>, pp. 3, 34–38.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen2023100–104-432"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen2023100–104_432-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, pp. 100–104.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-433"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-433">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">18 <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Statutes_at_Large" title="United States Statutes at Large">Stat.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://legislink.org/us/stat-18-317">317</a></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-434"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-434">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">16 <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Statutes_at_Large" title="United States Statutes at Large">Stat.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://legislink.org/us/stat-16-143">143</a></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021206-435"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021206_435-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLynch2021">Lynch 2021</a>, p. 206.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-436"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-436">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">62 <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Statutes_at_Large" title="United States Statutes at Large">Stat.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://legislink.org/us/stat-62-993">993</a></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Fed._R._Civ._P._R_81-437"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Fed._R._Civ._P._R_81_437-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Fed._R._Civ._P._R_81_437-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">Fed. R. Civ. P. R <a class="external text" href="https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/rule_81">81</a></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021187–188-438"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021187–188_438-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLynch2021">Lynch 2021</a>, pp. 187–188.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202327–29-439"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBaudePaulsen202327–29_439-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023">Baude & Paulsen 2023</a>, pp. 27–29.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-440"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-440">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMurray2022" class="citation web cs1">Murray, Isabella (September 8, 2022). <a class="external text" href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-removes-local-official-engaging-jan-insurrection/story?id=89463597">"Judge removes local official for engaging in Jan. 6 'insurrection'<span class="cs1-kern-right"></span>"</a>. <i>ABC News</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20221118231459/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-removes-local-official-engaging-jan-insurrection/story?id=89463597">Archived</a> from the original on November 18, 2022<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">November 18,</span> 2022</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=ABC+News&rft.atitle=Judge+removes+local+official+for+engaging+in+Jan.+6+%27insurrection%27&rft.date=2022-09-08&rft.aulast=Murray&rft.aufirst=Isabella&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FPolitics%2Fjudge-removes-local-official-engaging-jan-insurrection%2Fstory%3Fid%3D89463597&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-441"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-441">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>Newman v. United States ex rel. Frizzell</i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_238" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 238">238</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/238/537/">537</a> (1915)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021192–194-442"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021192–194_442-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLynch2021">Lynch 2021</a>, pp. 192–194.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-443"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-443">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><cite><i>Application of James</i></cite>, <a class="external text" href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/241/858/1951206/">241 F. Supp. 858</a> (<a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_District_Court_for_the_Southern_District_of_New_York" title="United States District Court for the Southern District of New York">S.D.N.Y.</a> 1965).</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-444"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-444">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/titles/16/chapters/35">"Chapter 35. Quo Warranto. – D.C. Law Library"</a>. <i>dccouncil.gov</i>. <a href="/info/en/?search=Council_of_the_District_of_Columbia" title="Council of the District of Columbia">Council of the District of Columbia</a><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">March 1,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=dccouncil.gov&rft.atitle=Chapter+35.+Quo+Warranto.+%E2%80%93+D.C.+Law+Library&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcode.dccouncil.gov%2Fus%2Fdc%2Fcouncil%2Fcode%2Ftitles%2F16%2Fchapters%2F35&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-445"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-445">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Nixon_v._Fitzgerald" title="Nixon v. Fitzgerald">Nixon v. Fitzgerald</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_457" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 457">457</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/731/">731</a> (1982)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Clinton_v._Jones_p._682-446"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Clinton_v._Jones_p._682_446-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Clinton_v._Jones_p._682_446-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Clinton_v._Jones" title="Clinton v. Jones">Clinton v. Jones</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_520" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 520">520</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/520/681/#682">681, 682</a> (1997)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-447"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-447">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Clinton_v._Jones" title="Clinton v. Jones">Clinton v. Jones</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_520" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 520">520</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/520/681/#681–682">681, 681–682</a> (1997)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-448"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-448">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._v._Sawyer" title="Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer">Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_343" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 343">343</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/579/">579</a> (1952)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-449"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-449">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_v._Nixon" title="United States v. Nixon">United States v. Nixon</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_418" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 418">418</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/418/683/">683</a> (1974)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-450"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-450">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMoss2000" class="citation report cs1 cs1-prop-long-vol">Moss, Randolph D. (October 16, 2000). <a class="external text" href="https://www.justice.gov/d9/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf">A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span> (Report). Vol. 24, Opinions. Office of Legal Counsel. pp. 222–260<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 29,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=A+Sitting+President%27s+Amenability+to+Indictment+and+Criminal+Prosecution&rft.pages=222-260&rft.pub=Office+of+Legal+Counsel&rft.date=2000-10-16&rft.aulast=Moss&rft.aufirst=Randolph+D.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.justice.gov%2Fd9%2Folc%2Fopinions%2F2000%2F10%2F31%2Fop-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-451"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-451">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFTau2022" class="citation news cs1">Tau, Byron (February 18, 2022). <a class="external text" href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-allows-lawsuits-to-proceed-against-donald-trump-militia-groups-in-jan-6-lawsuit-11645218911">"Judge Allows Lawsuits to Proceed Against Donald Trump, Militia Groups in Jan 6. Lawsuit"</a>. <i>The Wall Street Journal</i>. News Corp<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">October 5,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Wall+Street+Journal&rft.atitle=Judge+Allows+Lawsuits+to+Proceed+Against+Donald+Trump%2C+Militia+Groups+in+Jan+6.+Lawsuit&rft.date=2022-02-18&rft.aulast=Tau&rft.aufirst=Byron&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fjudge-allows-lawsuits-to-proceed-against-donald-trump-militia-groups-in-jan-6-lawsuit-11645218911&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-452"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-452">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFCheneyGerstein2023" class="citation news cs1">Cheney, Kyle; Gerstein, Josh (November 27, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/27/trump-immunity-appeal-00128786">"Bid to hold Trump accountable for Jan. 6 violence stalls at appeals court"</a>. <i>Politico</i>. Axel Springer SE<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">November 29,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Politico&rft.atitle=Bid+to+hold+Trump+accountable+for+Jan.+6+violence+stalls+at+appeals+court&rft.date=2023-11-27&rft.aulast=Cheney&rft.aufirst=Kyle&rft.au=Gerstein%2C+Josh&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fnews%2F2023%2F11%2F27%2Ftrump-immunity-appeal-00128786&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-453"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-453">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFBarber2023" class="citation news cs1">Barber, C. Ryan (March 2, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-can-be-sued-over-role-in-jan-6-attack-justice-department-says-b9f5a58c">"Trump Can Be Sued Over Role in Jan. 6 Attack, Justice Department Says"</a>. <i>The Wall Street Journal</i>. News Corp<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">October 5,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Wall+Street+Journal&rft.atitle=Trump+Can+Be+Sued+Over+Role+in+Jan.+6+Attack%2C+Justice+Department+Says&rft.date=2023-03-02&rft.aulast=Barber&rft.aufirst=C.+Ryan&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Ftrump-can-be-sued-over-role-in-jan-6-attack-justice-department-says-b9f5a58c&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-454"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-454">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFPolantzLybrand2023" class="citation news cs1">Polantz, Katelyn; Lybrand, Holmes (December 1, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/01/politics/trump-presidential-immunity-january-6-lawsuits/index.html">"Trump doesn't have presidential immunity from lawsuits over January 6, appeals court rules"</a>. CNN<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 1,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Trump+doesn%27t+have+presidential+immunity+from+lawsuits+over+January+6%2C+appeals+court+rules&rft.date=2023-12-01&rft.aulast=Polantz&rft.aufirst=Katelyn&rft.au=Lybrand%2C+Holmes&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2023%2F12%2F01%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-presidential-immunity-january-6-lawsuits%2Findex.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-455"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-455">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFWeinerHsu2023" class="citation news cs1">Weiner, Rachel; Hsu, Spencer S. (December 1, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/12/01/trump-can-be-sued-jan-6-immunity/">"Trump can be held civilly liable in Jan. 6 riot, judges rule"</a>. <i>The Washington Post</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 1,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Washington+Post&rft.atitle=Trump+can+be+held+civilly+liable+in+Jan.+6+riot%2C+judges+rule&rft.date=2023-12-01&rft.aulast=Weiner&rft.aufirst=Rachel&rft.au=Hsu%2C+Spencer+S.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fdc-md-va%2F2023%2F12%2F01%2Ftrump-can-be-sued-jan-6-immunity%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-456"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-456">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFBarnesRichards2023" class="citation news cs1">Barnes, Daniel; Richards, Zoë (December 1, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/judge-denies-two-trumps-motions-dismiss-federal-election-interference-rcna127720">"Judge denies two of Trump's motions to dismiss his federal election interference case"</a>. NBC News<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 3,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Judge+denies+two+of+Trump%27s+motions+to+dismiss+his+federal+election+interference+case&rft.date=2023-12-01&rft.aulast=Barnes&rft.aufirst=Daniel&rft.au=Richards%2C+Zo%C3%AB&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fpolitics%2Fdonald-trump%2Fjudge-denies-two-trumps-motions-dismiss-federal-election-interference-rcna127720&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-457"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-457">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLegare2023" class="citation news cs1">Legare, Robert (December 1, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-rejects-trump-motion-to-dismiss-2020-federal-election-interference-case/">"Judge rejects Trump's motion to dismiss 2020 federal election interference case"</a>. CBS News<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 3,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Judge+rejects+Trump%27s+motion+to+dismiss+2020+federal+election+interference+case&rft.date=2023-12-01&rft.aulast=Legare&rft.aufirst=Robert&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fnews%2Fjudge-rejects-trump-motion-to-dismiss-2020-federal-election-interference-case%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-458"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-458">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation news cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/12/07/trump-appeal-trial-immunity/">"Trump appeals Jan. 6 immunity ruling, launching process that may delay trial"</a>. <i>Washington Post</i>. December 7, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 11,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Washington+Post&rft.atitle=Trump+appeals+Jan.+6+immunity+ruling%2C+launching+process+that+may+delay+trial&rft.date=2023-12-07&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnational-security%2F2023%2F12%2F07%2Ftrump-appeal-trial-immunity%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-459"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-459">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFTuckerRicher2024" class="citation news cs1">Tucker, Eric; Richer, Alanna Durkin (February 6, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-capitol-riot-presidential-immunity-appeal-46c2d7fc7807cd3262764d35e47f390e">"Trump is not immune from prosecution in his 2020 election interference case, US appeals court says"</a>. Associated Press<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">February 6,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Trump+is+not+immune+from+prosecution+in+his+2020+election+interference+case%2C+US+appeals+court+says&rft.date=2024-02-06&rft.aulast=Tucker&rft.aufirst=Eric&rft.au=Richer%2C+Alanna+Durkin&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fapnews.com%2Farticle%2Ftrump-capitol-riot-presidential-immunity-appeal-46c2d7fc7807cd3262764d35e47f390e&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-460"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-460">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFFauldersMallinCharalambous2024" class="citation news cs1">Faulders, Katherine; Mallin, Alexander; Charalambous, Peter (February 6, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/appeals-court-rejects-trumps-immunity-claim-federal-election/story?id=106380940">"Appeals court rejects Trump's immunity claim in federal election interference case"</a>. ABC News<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">February 6,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Appeals+court+rejects+Trump%27s+immunity+claim+in+federal+election+interference+case&rft.date=2024-02-06&rft.aulast=Faulders&rft.aufirst=Katherine&rft.au=Mallin%2C+Alexander&rft.au=Charalambous%2C+Peter&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FPolitics%2Fappeals-court-rejects-trumps-immunity-claim-federal-election%2Fstory%3Fid%3D106380940&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-461"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-461">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFColeRabinowitzLybrandPolantz2024" class="citation news cs1">Cole, Devan; Rabinowitz, Hannah; Lybrand, Holmes; Polantz, Katelyn; Cohen, Marshall (February 6, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/06/politics/trump-immunity-court-of-appeals/index.html">"Trump does not have presidential immunity in January 6 case, federal appeals court rules"</a>. CNN<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">February 6,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Trump+does+not+have+presidential+immunity+in+January+6+case%2C+federal+appeals+court+rules&rft.date=2024-02-06&rft.aulast=Cole&rft.aufirst=Devan&rft.au=Rabinowitz%2C+Hannah&rft.au=Lybrand%2C+Holmes&rft.au=Polantz%2C+Katelyn&rft.au=Cohen%2C+Marshall&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2024%2F02%2F06%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-immunity-court-of-appeals%2Findex.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-462"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-462">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=McPherson_v._Blacker" title="McPherson v. Blacker">McPherson v. Blacker</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_146" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 146">146</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/146/1/#35">1, 35</a> (1892)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-463"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-463">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=McPherson_v._Blacker" title="McPherson v. Blacker">McPherson v. Blacker</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_146" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 146">146</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/146/1/#27">1, 27</a> (1892)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENealeNolan201926–29-464"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENealeNolan201926–29_464-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNealeNolan2019">Neale & Nolan 2019</a>, pp. 26–29.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEGamboa20017–9-465"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGamboa20017–9_465-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGamboa20017–9_465-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGamboa20017–9_465-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFGamboa2001">Gamboa 2001</a>, pp. 7–9.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENealeNolan201930-466"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENealeNolan201930_466-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENealeNolan201930_466-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNealeNolan2019">Neale & Nolan 2019</a>, p. 30.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-467"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-467">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Chiafalo_v._Washington" title="Chiafalo v. Washington">Chiafalo v. Washington</a></i>, No. <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/591/19-465/">19-465</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_591" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 591">591</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> ___, slip op. at 9 (2020)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEShelly20202–3-468"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEShelly20202–3_468-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEShelly20202–3_468-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEShelly20202–3_468-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFShelly2020">Shelly 2020</a>, pp. 2–3.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-469"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-469">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Moore_v._Harper" title="Moore v. Harper">Moore v. Harper</a></i>, No. <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/600/21-1271/">21-1271</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_600" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 600">600</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> ___, slip op. at 11–29 (2023)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-470"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-470">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFSherman2023" class="citation news cs1">Sherman, Mark (June 27, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/supreme-court-upholds-north-carolina-ruling-declines-to-invoke-independent-state-legislature-theory">"Supreme Court upholds North Carolina ruling, declines 'independent state legislature' theory"</a>. <i>PBS NewsHour</i>. WETA. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230627143803/https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/supreme-court-upholds-north-carolina-ruling-declines-to-invoke-independent-state-legislature-theory">Archived</a> from the original on June 27, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">June 27,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=PBS+NewsHour&rft.atitle=Supreme+Court+upholds+North+Carolina+ruling%2C+declines+%27independent+state+legislature%27+theory&rft.date=2023-06-27&rft.aulast=Sherman&rft.aufirst=Mark&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbs.org%2Fnewshour%2Fpolitics%2Fsupreme-court-upholds-north-carolina-ruling-declines-to-invoke-independent-state-legislature-theory&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-471"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-471">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFHurley2023" class="citation news cs1">Hurley, Lawrence (June 27, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-republicans-north-carolina-elections-dispute-rcna68630">"Supreme Court rules against giving state legislatures unchecked control over federal elections"</a>. NBC News. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230627142042/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-republicans-north-carolina-elections-dispute-rcna68630">Archived</a> from the original on June 27, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">June 27,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Supreme+Court+rules+against+giving+state+legislatures+unchecked+control+over+federal+elections&rft.date=2023-06-27&rft.aulast=Hurley&rft.aufirst=Lawrence&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fpolitics%2Fsupreme-court%2Fsupreme-court-rules-republicans-north-carolina-elections-dispute-rcna68630&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-472"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-472">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Storer_v._Brown" title="Storer v. Brown">Storer v. Brown</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_415" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 415">415</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/415/724/#730">724, 730</a> (1974)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEGamboa20013-473"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGamboa20013_473-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFGamboa2001">Gamboa 2001</a>, p. 3.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-474"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-474">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>Jenness v. Fortson</i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_403" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 403">403</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/431/#442">431, 442</a> (1971)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-475"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-475">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Storer_v._Brown" title="Storer v. Brown">Storer v. Brown</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_415" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 415">415</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/415/724/#733">724, 733</a> (1974)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024b3-476"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024b3_476-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElseaJonesWhitaker2024b3_476-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFElseaJonesWhitaker2024b">Elsea, Jones & Whitaker 2024b</a>, p. 3.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-477"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-477">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>Munro v. Socialist Workers</i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_479" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 479">479</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/479/189/#194–195">189, 194–195</a> (1986)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-478"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-478">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>Bullock v. Carter</i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_405" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 405">405</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/134/#145–146">134, 145–146</a> (1972)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-479"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-479">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFRaskinBonifaz1994" class="citation journal cs1">Raskin, Jamin; Bonifaz, John (1994). "The Constitutional Imperative and Practical Superiority of Democratically Financed Elections". <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Columbia_Law_Review" title="Columbia Law Review">Columbia Law Review</a></i>. <b>94</b> (4). Columbia Law Review Association: 1169. <a href="/info/en/?search=Doi_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Doi (identifier)">doi</a>:<a class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1123281">10.2307/1123281</a>. <a href="/info/en/?search=JSTOR_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="JSTOR (identifier)">JSTOR</a> <a class="external text" href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1123281">1123281</a>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Columbia+Law+Review&rft.atitle=The+Constitutional+Imperative+and+Practical+Superiority+of+Democratically+Financed+Elections&rft.volume=94&rft.issue=4&rft.pages=1169&rft.date=1994&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.2307%2F1123281&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fstable%2F1123281%23id-name%3DJSTOR&rft.aulast=Raskin&rft.aufirst=Jamin&rft.au=Bonifaz%2C+John&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-480"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-480">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>Lubin v. Panish</i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_415" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 415">415</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/415/709/">709</a> (1974)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-481"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-481">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Williams_v._Rhodes" title="Williams v. Rhodes">Williams v. Rhodes</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_393" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 393">393</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/393/23/#23–24">23, 23–24</a> (1968)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-482"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-482">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Anderson_v._Celebrezze" title="Anderson v. Celebrezze">Anderson v. Celebrezze</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_460" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 460">460</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/460/780/#790–795">780, 790–795</a> (1983)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEAmado202227–32-483"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEAmado202227–32_483-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFAmado2022">Amado 2022</a>, pp. 27–32.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEAmado202254–61-484"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEAmado202254–61_484-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFAmado2022">Amado 2022</a>, pp. 54–61.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-485"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-485">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation report cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/surveys/2020-07/research-ballot-access-president-Jan20_0.pdf">Summary: State Laws Regarding Presidential Ballot Access for the General Election</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span> (Report). <a href="/info/en/?search=National_Association_of_Secretaries_of_State" title="National Association of Secretaries of State">National Association of Secretaries of State</a>. January 2020. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231117225142/https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/surveys/2020-07/research-ballot-access-president-Jan20_0.pdf">Archived</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span> from the original on November 17, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 8,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Summary%3A+State+Laws+Regarding+Presidential+Ballot+Access+for+the+General+Election&rft.pub=National+Association+of+Secretaries+of+State&rft.date=2020-01&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nass.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fsurveys%2F2020-07%2Fresearch-ballot-access-president-Jan20_0.pdf&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-486"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-486">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>Eastern R. Conference v. Noerr Motors</i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_365" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 365">365</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/365/127/">127</a> (1961)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-487"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-487">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=California_Motor_Transport_Co._v._Trucking_Unlimited" title="California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited">California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_404" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 404">404</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/404/508/#510">508, 510</a> (1972)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-488"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-488">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/18-rights-of-assembly-and-petition.html">"Rights of Assembly and Petition"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Justia" title="Justia">Justia</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240106042753/https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/18-rights-of-assembly-and-petition.html">Archived</a> from the original on January 6, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 5,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Justia&rft.atitle=Rights+of+Assembly+and+Petition&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Flaw.justia.com%2Fconstitution%2Fus%2Famendment-01%2F18-rights-of-assembly-and-petition.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-489"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-489">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>Neitzke v. Williams</i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_490" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 490">490</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/319/#325">319, 325</a> (1989)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-490"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-490">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/frivolous">"frivolous – Wex – US Law"</a>. <i>Legal Information Institute</i>. Cornell Law School. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230602010611/https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/frivolous">Archived</a> from the original on June 2, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 5,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Legal+Information+Institute&rft.atitle=frivolous+%E2%80%93+Wex+%E2%80%93+US+Law&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.cornell.edu%2Fwex%2Ffrivolous&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-491"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-491">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.usa.gov/write-in-candidates">"Write-in candidates for federal and state elections"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=USA.gov" title="USA.gov">USA.gov</a></i>. <a href="/info/en/?search=General_Services_Administration" title="General Services Administration">General Services Administration</a>. August 18, 2023. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231208222400/https://www.usa.gov/write-in-candidates">Archived</a> from the original on December 8, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 6,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=USA.gov&rft.atitle=Write-in+candidates+for+federal+and+state+elections&rft.date=2023-08-18&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.usa.gov%2Fwrite-in-candidates&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEElection_Assistance_Commission20235–7-492"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElection_Assistance_Commission20235–7_492-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFElection_Assistance_Commission2023">Election Assistance Commission 2023</a>, pp. 5–7.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-493"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-493">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFFuller2013" class="citation journal cs1">Fuller, Jaime (November 5, 2013). <a class="external text" href="https://prospect.org/article/if-you-give-mouse-vote">"If You Give a Mouse a Vote"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=The_American_Prospect" title="The American Prospect">The American Prospect</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20180114182610/http://prospect.org/article/if-you-give-mouse-vote">Archived</a> from the original on January 14, 2018<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 30,</span> 2014</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+American+Prospect&rft.atitle=If+You+Give+a+Mouse+a+Vote&rft.date=2013-11-05&rft.aulast=Fuller&rft.aufirst=Jaime&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fprospect.org%2Farticle%2Fif-you-give-mouse-vote&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEElection_Assistance_Commission20231-494"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEElection_Assistance_Commission20231_494-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFElection_Assistance_Commission2023">Election Assistance Commission 2023</a>, p. 1.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-495"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-495">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton" title="U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton">U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_514" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 514">514</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/779/#834–835">779, 834–835</a> (1995)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-496"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-496">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton" title="U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton">U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_514" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 514">514</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/779/#837">779, 837</a> (1995)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-497"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-497">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton" title="U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton">U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_514" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 514">514</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/779/#833–834">779, 833–834</a> (1995)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-498"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-498">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton" title="U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton">U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_514" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 514">514</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/779/#850">779, 850</a> (1995) (Thomas, J., dissenting)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-499"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-499">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFFeeley2009" class="citation journal cs1">Feeley, Kristin (2009). <a class="external text" href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1121483">"Comment: Guaranteeing a Federally Elected President"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Northwestern_University_Law_Review" title="Northwestern University Law Review">Northwestern University Law Review</a></i>. <b>103</b> (3). <a href="/info/en/?search=Northwestern_University_Pritzker_School_of_Law" title="Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law">Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law</a>. <a href="/info/en/?search=SSRN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="SSRN (identifier)">SSRN</a> <a class="external text" href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1121483">1121483</a>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20200328195108/https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1121483">Archived</a> from the original on March 28, 2020<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">October 13,</span> 2020</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Northwestern+University+Law+Review&rft.atitle=Comment%3A+Guaranteeing+a+Federally+Elected+President&rft.volume=103&rft.issue=3&rft.date=2009&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fpapers.ssrn.com%2Fsol3%2Fpapers.cfm%3Fabstract_id%3D1121483%23id-name%3DSSRN&rft.aulast=Feeley&rft.aufirst=Kristin&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fpapers.ssrn.com%2Fsol3%2Fpapers.cfm%3Fabstract_id%3D1121483&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-500"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-500">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton" title="U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton">U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_514" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 514">514</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/779/#861">779, 861</a> (1995) (Thomas, J., dissenting)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-501"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-501">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Chiafalo_v._Washington" title="Chiafalo v. Washington">Chiafalo v. Washington</a></i>, No. <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/591/19-465/">19-465</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_591" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 591">591</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> ___, slip op. at 11–12 (2020) (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-502"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-502">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Williams_v._Rhodes" title="Williams v. Rhodes">Williams v. Rhodes</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_393" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 393">393</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/393/23/#29">23, 29</a> (1968)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-503"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-503">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Chiafalo_v._Washington" title="Chiafalo v. Washington">Chiafalo v. Washington</a></i>, No. <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/591/19-465/">19-465</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_591" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 591">591</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> ___, slip op. at 3 (2020)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021184–186-504"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021184–186_504-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLynch2021">Lynch 2021</a>, pp. 184–186.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021189–190-505"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021189–190_505-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLynch2021">Lynch 2021</a>, pp. 189–190.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-506"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-506">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFNeale2019" class="citation report cs1">Neale, Thomas H. (April 15, 2019). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R40864">Presidential Terms and Tenure: Perspectives and Proposals for Change</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service. pp. 24–26<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 11,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Presidential+Terms+and+Tenure%3A+Perspectives+and+Proposals+for+Change&rft.pages=24-26&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2019-04-15&rft.aulast=Neale&rft.aufirst=Thomas+H.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FR%2FR40864&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003565-507"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003565_507-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, p. 565.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021186–187-508"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021186–187_508-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLynch2021">Lynch 2021</a>, pp. 186–187.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTELynch2021190–191-509"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTELynch2021190–191_509-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFLynch2021">Lynch 2021</a>, pp. 190–191.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-510"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-510">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMansch2005" class="citation book cs1">Mansch, Larry D. (2005). <a class="external text" href="https://books.google.com/books?id=NMt-yrjVE50C"><i>Abraham Lincoln, President-elect: The Four Critical Months from Election to Inauguration</i></a>. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 61. <a href="/info/en/?search=ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Special:BookSources/978-0-7864-2026-1" title="Special:BookSources/978-0-7864-2026-1"><bdi>978-0-7864-2026-1</bdi></a>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Abraham+Lincoln%2C+President-elect%3A+The+Four+Critical+Months+from+Election+to+Inauguration&rft.place=Jefferson%2C+North+Carolina&rft.pages=61&rft.pub=McFarland+%26+Company&rft.date=2005&rft.isbn=978-0-7864-2026-1&rft.aulast=Mansch&rft.aufirst=Larry+D.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com%2Fbooks%3Fid%3DNMt-yrjVE50C&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-511"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-511">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFDonald1996" class="citation book cs1"><a href="/info/en/?search=David_Herbert_Donald" title="David Herbert Donald">Donald, David Herbert</a> (1996). <i>Lincoln</i>. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 256. <a href="/info/en/?search=ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Special:BookSources/978-0-684-82535-9" title="Special:BookSources/978-0-684-82535-9"><bdi>978-0-684-82535-9</bdi></a>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Lincoln&rft.place=New+York&rft.pages=256&rft.pub=Simon+%26+Schuster&rft.date=1996&rft.isbn=978-0-684-82535-9&rft.aulast=Donald&rft.aufirst=David+Herbert&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-513"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-513">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFAmar2024" class="citation news cs1">Amar, Akhil Reed (February 7, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/07/opinion/supreme-court-trump-section-3.html">"The Supreme Court Should Get Out of the Insurrection Business"</a>. <i>The New York Times</i>. The New York Times Company<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">February 7,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+New+York+Times&rft.atitle=The+Supreme+Court+Should+Get+Out+of+the+Insurrection+Business&rft.date=2024-02-07&rft.aulast=Amar&rft.aufirst=Akhil+Reed&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F02%2F07%2Fopinion%2Fsupreme-court-trump-section-3.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-514"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-514">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">136 <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Statutes_at_Large" title="United States Statutes at Large">Stat.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://legislink.org/us/stat-136-5237">5237</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=Public_Law_(United_States)" class="mw-redirect" title="Public Law (United States)"><abbr title="Public Law (United States)">Pub. L.</abbr></a><span class="sr-only" style="border: 0; clip: rect(0, 0, 0, 0); clip-path: polygon(0px 0px, 0px 0px, 0px 0px); height: 1px; margin: -1px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0; position: absolute; width: 1px; white-space: nowrap;">Tooltip Public Law (United States)</span> <a class="external text" href="https://www.govinfo.gov/link/plaw/117/public/328?link-type=html">117–328 (text)</a> <a class="external text" href="https://www.govinfo.gov/link/plaw/117/public/328?link-type=pdf&.pdf">(PDF)</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=Title_3_of_the_United_States_Code" title="Title 3 of the United States Code">3 U.S.C.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15">§ 15</a></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERybickiWhitaker20206–8-515"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERybickiWhitaker20206–8_515-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRybickiWhitaker2020">Rybicki & Whitaker 2020</a>, pp. 6–8.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERybickiWhitaker20204–5-516"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERybickiWhitaker20204–5_516-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERybickiWhitaker20204–5_516-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRybickiWhitaker2020">Rybicki & Whitaker 2020</a>, pp. 4–5.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTESenate_Journal_42(3)340–344-517"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTESenate_Journal_42(3)340–344_517-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFSenate_Journal_42(3)">Senate Journal 42(3)</a>, pp. 340–344.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020c4-518"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020c4_518-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020c4_518-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNeale2020c">Neale 2020c</a>, p. 4.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTESenate_Journal_42(3)334–337-519"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTESenate_Journal_42(3)334–337_519-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFSenate_Journal_42(3)">Senate Journal 42(3)</a>, pp. 334–337.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020c3-520"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020c3_520-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNeale2020c">Neale 2020c</a>, p. 3.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-521"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-521">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Chiafalo_v._Washington" title="Chiafalo v. Washington">Chiafalo v. Washington</a></i>, No. <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/591/19-465/">19-465</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_591" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 591">591</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> ___, slip op. at 16–17 (2020)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEShelly20203-522"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEShelly20203_522-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFShelly2020">Shelly 2020</a>, p. 3.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-523"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-523">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFTurflinger2011" class="citation journal cs1">Turflinger, Bradley T. (2011). <a class="external text" href="https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1443&context=vulr">"Fifty Republics and the National Popular Vote: How the Guarantee Clause Should Protect States Striving for Equal Protection in Presidential Elections"</a>. <i>Valparaiso University Law Review</i>. <b>45</b> (3). Valco Scholar: 798. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20141006180449/http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1443&context=vulr">Archived</a> from the original on October 6, 2014<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">September 25,</span> 2012</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Valparaiso+University+Law+Review&rft.atitle=Fifty+Republics+and+the+National+Popular+Vote%3A+How+the+Guarantee+Clause+Should+Protect+States+Striving+for+Equal+Protection+in+Presidential+Elections&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=3&rft.pages=798&rft.date=2011&rft.aulast=Turflinger&rft.aufirst=Bradley+T.&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.valpo.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1443%26context%3Dvulr&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-524"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-524">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>In re Green</i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_134" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 134">134</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/134/377/#379">377, 379</a> (1890)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-525"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-525">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Bush_v._Gore" title="Bush v. Gore">Bush v. Gore</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_531" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 531">531</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/98/#112">98, 112</a> (2000)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003560–561-526"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003560–561_526-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, pp. 560–561.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020bi-527"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020bi_527-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNeale2020b">Neale 2020b</a>, p. i.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020b9-528"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020b9_528-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNeale2020b">Neale 2020b</a>, p. 9.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544–545,_564-529"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003544–545,_564_529-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, pp. 544–545, 564.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020b9–10-530"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020b9–10_530-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNeale2020b">Neale 2020b</a>, pp. 9–10.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020b10-531"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020b10_531-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNeale2020b">Neale 2020b</a>, p. 10.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003564–565-532"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003564–565_532-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003564–565_532-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, pp. 564–565.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEContinuity_of_Government_Commission200931-533"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEContinuity_of_Government_Commission200931_533-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEContinuity_of_Government_Commission200931_533-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFContinuity_of_Government_Commission2009">Continuity of Government Commission 2009</a>, p. 31.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTENeale2020c6–7-534"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTENeale2020c6–7_534-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFNeale2020c">Neale 2020c</a>, pp. 6–7.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-535"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-535">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFUnderhill2023" class="citation web cs1">Underhill, Wendy (January 16, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/what-the-electoral-count-reform-act-means-for-states">"What the Electoral Count Reform Act Means for States"</a>. National Conference of State Legislatures. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230821194340/https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/what-the-electoral-count-reform-act-means-for-states">Archived</a> from the original on August 21, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">August 21,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=What+the+Electoral+Count+Reform+Act+Means+for+States&rft.pub=National+Conference+of+State+Legislatures&rft.date=2023-01-16&rft.aulast=Underhill&rft.aufirst=Wendy&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncsl.org%2Fstate-legislatures-news%2Fdetails%2Fwhat-the-electoral-count-reform-act-means-for-states&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-536"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-536">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">136 <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Statutes_at_Large" title="United States Statutes at Large">Stat.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://legislink.org/us/stat-136-5233">5233</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=Public_Law_(United_States)" class="mw-redirect" title="Public Law (United States)"><abbr title="Public Law (United States)">Pub. L.</abbr></a><span class="sr-only" style="border: 0; clip: rect(0, 0, 0, 0); clip-path: polygon(0px 0px, 0px 0px, 0px 0px); height: 1px; margin: -1px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0; position: absolute; width: 1px; white-space: nowrap;">Tooltip Public Law (United States)</span> <a class="external text" href="https://www.govinfo.gov/link/plaw/117/public/328?link-type=html">117–328 (text)</a> <a class="external text" href="https://www.govinfo.gov/link/plaw/117/public/328?link-type=pdf&.pdf">(PDF)</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=Title_3_of_the_United_States_Code" title="Title 3 of the United States Code">3 U.S.C.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/1">§ 1</a>, <a href="/info/en/?search=Title_3_of_the_United_States_Code" title="Title 3 of the United States Code">3 U.S.C.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/7">§ 7</a></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTERossiter2003550-537"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERossiter2003550_537-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFRossiter2003">Rossiter 2003</a>, p. 550.</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-538"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-538">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Burroughs_v._United_States" title="Burroughs v. United States">Burroughs v. United States</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_290" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 290">290</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/290/534/#544">534, 544</a> (1934)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-539"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-539">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Burroughs_v._United_States" title="Burroughs v. United States">Burroughs v. United States</a></i>, <a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_290" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 290">290</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/290/534/#545">534, 545</a> (1934)</span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-541"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-541">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFRosenwald2021" class="citation news cs1">Rosenwald, Michael S. (January 12, 2021). <a class="external text" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/01/11/14th-amendment-trump-insurrection-impeachment/">"There's an alternative to impeachment or 25th Amendment for Trump, historians say"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=The_Washington_Post" title="The Washington Post">The Washington Post</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210118095401/https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/01/11/14th-amendment-trump-insurrection-impeachment/">Archived</a> from the original on January 18, 2021<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 18,</span> 2021</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Washington+Post&rft.atitle=There%27s+an+alternative+to+impeachment+or+25th+Amendment+for+Trump%2C+historians+say&rft.date=2021-01-12&rft.aulast=Rosenwald&rft.aufirst=Michael+S.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fhistory%2F2021%2F01%2F11%2F14th-amendment-trump-insurrection-impeachment%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-542"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-542">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLuttigWallace2023" class="citation news cs1">Luttig, J. Michael; Wallace, Nicole (August 22, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/watch/fmr-federal-judge-trump-allies-committed-grave-crimes-with-2020-election-coup-plot-191375429762">"Fmr. federal judge: Trump, allies committed 'grave crimes' with 2020 election coup plot"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=MSNBC" title="MSNBC">MSNBC</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://archive.today/20230823211323/https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/watch/fmr-federal-judge-trump-allies-committed-grave-crimes-with-2020-election-coup-plot-191375429762">Archived</a> from the original on August 23, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">August 23,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=MSNBC&rft.atitle=Fmr.+federal+judge%3A+Trump%2C+allies+committed+%27grave+crimes%27+with+2020+election+coup+plot&rft.date=2023-08-22&rft.aulast=Luttig&rft.aufirst=J.+Michael&rft.au=Wallace%2C+Nicole&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.msnbc.com%2Fdeadline-white-house%2Fwatch%2Ffmr-federal-judge-trump-allies-committed-grave-crimes-with-2020-election-coup-plot-191375429762&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-543"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-543">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLuttigWallace2023" class="citation news cs1">Luttig, J. Michael; Wallace, Nicole (August 22, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/08/22/judge_luttig_secretaries_of_states_will_decline_to_place_trump_on_the_ballot_argue_he_is_unqualified.html">"Judge Luttig: Secretaries Of States Will Decline To Place Trump On The Ballot, Argue He Is Unqualified"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=RealClearPolitics" title="RealClearPolitics">RealClearPolitics</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://archive.today/wip/qNVot">Archived</a> from the original on August 23, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">August 23,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=RealClearPolitics&rft.atitle=Judge+Luttig%3A+Secretaries+Of+States+Will+Decline+To+Place+Trump+On+The+Ballot%2C+Argue+He+Is+Unqualified&rft.date=2023-08-22&rft.aulast=Luttig&rft.aufirst=J.+Michael&rft.au=Wallace%2C+Nicole&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclearpolitics.com%2Fvideo%2F2023%2F08%2F22%2Fjudge_luttig_secretaries_of_states_will_decline_to_place_trump_on_the_ballot_argue_he_is_unqualified.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Cohen-544"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Cohen_544-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Cohen_544-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFCohen2023" class="citation news cs1">Cohen, Marshall (November 14, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/14/politics/michigan-judge-trump-14th-amendment/index.html">"Trump to remain on Michigan ballot after judge rejects another 14th Amendment challenge"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=CNN" title="CNN">CNN</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231118004525/https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/14/politics/michigan-judge-trump-14th-amendment/index.html">Archived</a> from the original on November 18, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">November 18,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=CNN&rft.atitle=Trump+to+remain+on+Michigan+ballot+after+judge+rejects+another+14th+Amendment+challenge&rft.date=2023-11-14&rft.aulast=Cohen&rft.aufirst=Marshall&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2023%2F11%2F14%2Fpolitics%2Fmichigan-judge-trump-14th-amendment%2Findex.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-BBC231118-545"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-BBC231118_545-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-BBC231118_545-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation news cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67446313">"Donald Trump to remain on Colorado primary ballot after judge dismisses lawsuit"</a>. <i>BBC News</i>. November 18, 2023. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231118004150/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67446313">Archived</a> from the original on November 18, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">November 18,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=BBC+News&rft.atitle=Donald+Trump+to+remain+on+Colorado+primary+ballot+after+judge+dismisses+lawsuit&rft.date=2023-11-18&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fworld-us-canada-67446313&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-546"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-546">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFWoodruff2023" class="citation news cs1">Woodruff, Chase (December 6, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/12/06/colorado-supreme-court-trump-14th-amendment/">"Colorado Supreme Court hears arguments in Trump 14th Amendment case"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Colorado_Newsline" class="mw-redirect" title="Colorado Newsline">Colorado Newsline</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231207224042/https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/12/06/colorado-supreme-court-trump-14th-amendment/">Archived</a> from the original on December 7, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 8,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Colorado+Newsline&rft.atitle=Colorado+Supreme+Court+hears+arguments+in+Trump+14th+Amendment+case&rft.date=2023-12-06&rft.aulast=Woodruff&rft.aufirst=Chase&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcoloradonewsline.com%2F2023%2F12%2F06%2Fcolorado-supreme-court-trump-14th-amendment%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-547"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-547">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFCorasaniti2023" class="citation news cs1">Corasaniti, Nick (December 20, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/20/us/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-other-states.html">"Here Are the Other States Where Trump's Ballot Eligibility Faces a Challenge"</a>. <i>The New York Times</i>. <a href="/info/en/?search=ISSN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISSN (identifier)">ISSN</a> <a class="external text" href="https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0362-4331">0362-4331</a>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231220231614/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/20/us/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-other-states.html">Archived</a> from the original on December 20, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 20,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+New+York+Times&rft.atitle=Here+Are+the+Other+States+Where+Trump%27s+Ballot+Eligibility+Faces+a+Challenge&rft.date=2023-12-20&rft.issn=0362-4331&rft.aulast=Corasaniti&rft.aufirst=Nick&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2023%2F12%2F20%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-colorado-ballot-other-states.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-548"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-548">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFHanBenjaminBowerGluck2023" class="citation web cs1">Han, Hyemin; Benjamin, Caleb; Bower, Anna; Gluck, Matt; McBrien, Tyler; Parloff, Roger (October 30, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker">"Tracking Section 3 Trump Disqualification Challenges"</a>. <i>Lawfare</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231230045108/https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker">Archived</a> from the original on December 30, 2023.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Lawfare&rft.atitle=Tracking+Section+3+Trump+Disqualification+Challenges&rft.date=2023-10-30&rft.aulast=Han&rft.aufirst=Hyemin&rft.au=Benjamin%2C+Caleb&rft.au=Bower%2C+Anna&rft.au=Gluck%2C+Matt&rft.au=McBrien%2C+Tyler&rft.au=Parloff%2C+Roger&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawfaremedia.org%2Fcurrent-projects%2Fthe-trump-trials%2Fsection-3-litigation-tracker&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-549"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-549">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFScherer2023" class="citation news cs1">Scherer, Michael (April 19, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/18/trump-ballots-january-6/">"Trump team prepares to fight efforts to block him from ballots over Jan. 6"</a>. <i>Washington Post</i>. <a href="/info/en/?search=ISSN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISSN (identifier)">ISSN</a> <a class="external text" href="https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0190-8286">0190-8286</a><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">October 27,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Washington+Post&rft.atitle=Trump+team+prepares+to+fight+efforts+to+block+him+from+ballots+over+Jan.+6&rft.date=2023-04-19&rft.issn=0190-8286&rft.aulast=Scherer&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fpolitics%2F2023%2F04%2F18%2Ftrump-ballots-january-6%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-550"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-550">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFDemissieGersony2023" class="citation news cs1">Demissie, Hannah; Gersony, Laura (August 26, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/14th-amendment-section-3-new-legal-battle-trump/story?id=102547316">"14th Amendment, Section 3: A new legal battle against Trump takes shape"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=ABC_News" title="ABC News">ABC News</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230905231239/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/14th-amendment-section-3-new-legal-battle-trump/story?id=102547316">Archived</a> from the original on September 5, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">September 6,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=ABC+News&rft.atitle=14th+Amendment%2C+Section+3%3A+A+new+legal+battle+against+Trump+takes+shape&rft.date=2023-08-26&rft.aulast=Demissie&rft.aufirst=Hannah&rft.au=Gersony%2C+Laura&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FPolitics%2F14th-amendment-section-3-new-legal-battle-trump%2Fstory%3Fid%3D102547316&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-:2-551"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-:2_551-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-:2_551-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation news cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67899435">"Supreme Court to rule if Trump can run for president"</a>. <i>BBC News</i>. January 5, 2024. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240106105126/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67899435">Archived</a> from the original on January 6, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 5,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=BBC+News&rft.atitle=Supreme+Court+to+rule+if+Trump+can+run+for+president&rft.date=2024-01-05&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fworld-us-canada-67899435&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-552"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-552">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFSherman2024" class="citation web cs1">Sherman, Mark (January 27, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-urged-rule-trump-ineligible-president-again-over-jan_n_65b500afe4b0d407294f429a">"SCOTUS Urged To Rule Trump Ineligible To Be President Again Because Of Jan. 6 Insurrection"</a>. <i>HuffPost</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 27,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=HuffPost&rft.atitle=SCOTUS+Urged+To+Rule+Trump+Ineligible+To+Be+President+Again+Because+Of+Jan.+6+Insurrection&rft.date=2024-01-27&rft.aulast=Sherman&rft.aufirst=Mark&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Fsupreme-court-urged-rule-trump-ineligible-president-again-over-jan_n_65b500afe4b0d407294f429a&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-553"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-553">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/298854/20240126115645084_23-719%20Anderson%20Respondents%20Merits%20Brief.pdf">"Brief on the merits for Anderson Respondents (Trump v. Anderson No. 23-719)"</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span>. <i>supremecourt.gov</i>. January 26, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 27,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=supremecourt.gov&rft.atitle=Brief+on+the+merits+for+Anderson+Respondents+%28Trump+v.+Anderson+No.+23-719%29&rft.date=2024-01-26&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2FDocketPDF%2F23%2F23-719%2F298854%2F20240126115645084_23-719%2520Anderson%2520Respondents%2520Merits%2520Brief.pdf&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-554"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-554">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLee2023" class="citation news cs1">Lee, Ella (August 25, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4171623-florida-lawyer-files-challenge-to-disqualify-trump-from-2024-race-citing-14th-amendment/">"Florida lawyer files challenge to disqualify Trump from 2024 race, citing 14th Amendment"</a>. <i>The Hill</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231203210638/https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4171623-florida-lawyer-files-challenge-to-disqualify-trump-from-2024-race-citing-14th-amendment/">Archived</a> from the original on December 3, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 20,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Hill&rft.atitle=Florida+lawyer+files+challenge+to+disqualify+Trump+from+2024+race%2C+citing+14th+Amendment&rft.date=2023-08-25&rft.aulast=Lee&rft.aufirst=Ella&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fregulation%2Fcourt-battles%2F4171623-florida-lawyer-files-challenge-to-disqualify-trump-from-2024-race-citing-14th-amendment%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-555"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-555">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67724934/1/caplan-v-trump/">"Caplan v. TRUMP, 0:23-cv-61628, (S.D. Fla. Aug 24, 2023) ECF No"</a>. <i>Court Listener</i>. August 24, 2023. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230905134136/https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67724934/1/caplan-v-trump/">Archived</a> from the original on September 5, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 20,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Court+Listener&rft.atitle=Caplan+v.+TRUMP%2C+0%3A23-cv-61628%2C+%28S.D.+Fla.+Aug+24%2C+2023%29+ECF+No.&rft.date=2023-08-24&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.courtlistener.com%2Fdocket%2F67724934%2F1%2Fcaplan-v-trump%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-556"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-556">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMan2023" class="citation news cs1">Man, Anthony (September 1, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2023/09/01/federal-judge-dismisses-florida-lawsuit-seeking-to-have-trump-declared-ineligible-for-presidency/">"Federal judge dismisses Florida lawsuit seeking to have Trump declared ineligible for presidency"</a>. <i>The South Florida Sun Sentinel</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231115234011/https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2023/09/01/federal-judge-dismisses-florida-lawsuit-seeking-to-have-trump-declared-ineligible-for-presidency/">Archived</a> from the original on November 15, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 20,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+South+Florida+Sun+Sentinel&rft.atitle=Federal+judge+dismisses+Florida+lawsuit+seeking+to+have+Trump+declared+ineligible+for+presidency&rft.date=2023-09-01&rft.aulast=Man&rft.aufirst=Anthony&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sun-sentinel.com%2F2023%2F09%2F01%2Ffederal-judge-dismisses-florida-lawsuit-seeking-to-have-trump-declared-ineligible-for-presidency%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-557"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-557">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFFisher2023" class="citation news cs1">Fisher, Damien (October 22, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://nhjournal.com/the-600-man-trying-to-bring-down-trump">"The $600 Man Trying To Bring Down Trump"</a>. <i>New Hampshire Journal</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231023023335/https://nhjournal.com/the-600-man-trying-to-bring-down-trump/">Archived</a> from the original on October 23, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">October 24,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=New+Hampshire+Journal&rft.atitle=The+%24600+Man+Trying+To+Bring+Down+Trump&rft.date=2023-10-22&rft.aulast=Fisher&rft.aufirst=Damien&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fnhjournal.com%2Fthe-600-man-trying-to-bring-down-trump&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-558"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-558">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFBenson2023" class="citation news cs1">Benson, Samuel (September 7, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://archive.today/20230909044601/https://www.deseret.com/2023/9/7/23862928/utah-lawsuit-bar-trump-2024-election-ballot-14th-amendment">"New Utah lawsuit attempts to bar Trump from 2024 election ballot"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Deseret_News" title="Deseret News">Deseret News</a></i>. Archived from <a class="external text" href="https://www.deseret.com/2023/9/7/23862928/utah-lawsuit-bar-trump-2024-election-ballot-14th-amendment">the original</a> on September 9, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">October 24,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Deseret+News&rft.atitle=New+Utah+lawsuit+attempts+to+bar+Trump+from+2024+election+ballot&rft.date=2023-09-07&rft.aulast=Benson&rft.aufirst=Samuel&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.deseret.com%2F2023%2F9%2F7%2F23862928%2Futah-lawsuit-bar-trump-2024-election-ballot-14th-amendment&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-559"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-559">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFRoss2023" class="citation news cs1">Ross, Keaton (September 13, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://archive.today/20230913223013/https://www.normantranscript.com/news/lawsuit-seeks-to-block-trump-from-the-ballot-in-oklahoma/article_e2c0fab0-51b5-11ee-b6f8-3f1640ff9d62.html">"Lawsuit seeks to block Trump from the ballot in Oklahoma"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Norman_Transcript" class="mw-redirect" title="Norman Transcript">Norman Transcript</a></i>. Archived from <a class="external text" href="https://www.normantranscript.com/news/lawsuit-seeks-to-block-trump-from-the-ballot-in-oklahoma/article_e2c0fab0-51b5-11ee-b6f8-3f1640ff9d62.html">the original</a> on September 13, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">October 24,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Norman+Transcript&rft.atitle=Lawsuit+seeks+to+block+Trump+from+the+ballot+in+Oklahoma&rft.date=2023-09-13&rft.aulast=Ross&rft.aufirst=Keaton&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.normantranscript.com%2Fnews%2Flawsuit-seeks-to-block-trump-from-the-ballot-in-oklahoma%2Farticle_e2c0fab0-51b5-11ee-b6f8-3f1640ff9d62.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-560"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-560">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFQuinn2023" class="citation news cs1">Quinn, Melissa (December 29, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-ballot-14th-amendment-section-3-2024-eligibility/">"Trump's eligibility for the ballot is being challenged under the 14th Amendment. Here are the notable cases"</a>. <i>CBS News</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231229230933/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-ballot-14th-amendment-section-3-2024-eligibility/">Archived</a> from the original on December 29, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 30,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=CBS+News&rft.atitle=Trump%27s+eligibility+for+the+ballot+is+being+challenged+under+the+14th+Amendment.+Here+are+the+notable+cases.&rft.date=2023-12-29&rft.aulast=Quinn&rft.aufirst=Melissa&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fnews%2Ftrump-ballot-14th-amendment-section-3-2024-eligibility%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-561"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-561">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFCole2023" class="citation news cs1">Cole, Devan (October 2, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/02/politics/donald-trump-fourteenth-amendment-ballot-case-supreme-court/index.html">"Supreme Court declines to consider longshot bid to disqualify Trump from running for president"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=CNN" title="CNN">CNN</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231002153730/https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/02/politics/donald-trump-fourteenth-amendment-ballot-case-supreme-court/index.html">Archived</a> from the original on October 2, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">October 2,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=CNN&rft.atitle=Supreme+Court+declines+to+consider+longshot+bid+to+disqualify+Trump+from+running+for+president&rft.date=2023-10-02&rft.aulast=Cole&rft.aufirst=Devan&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2023%2F10%2F02%2Fpolitics%2Fdonald-trump-fourteenth-amendment-ballot-case-supreme-court%2Findex.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-562"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-562">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFKruzel2023" class="citation news cs1">Kruzel, John (October 2, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-rebuffs-long-shot-candidates-bid-disqualify-trump-2024-2023-10-02/">"US Supreme Court rebuffs long-shot candidate's bid to disqualify Trump in 2024"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Reuters" title="Reuters">Reuters</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231115220433/https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-rebuffs-long-shot-candidates-bid-disqualify-trump-2024-2023-10-02/">Archived</a> from the original on November 15, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">November 18,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Reuters&rft.atitle=US+Supreme+Court+rebuffs+long-shot+candidate%27s+bid+to+disqualify+Trump+in+2024&rft.date=2023-10-02&rft.aulast=Kruzel&rft.aufirst=John&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Fworld%2Fus%2Fus-supreme-court-rebuffs-long-shot-candidates-bid-disqualify-trump-2024-2023-10-02%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-563"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-563">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLandrigan2023" class="citation news cs1">Landrigan, Kevin (October 31, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://news.yahoo.com/nh-fed-judge-dismisses-suit-035900442.html">"NH fed judge dismisses suit to knock Trump off ballot"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=New_Hampshire_Union_Leader" title="New Hampshire Union Leader">New Hampshire Union Leader</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231118045311/https://news.yahoo.com/nh-fed-judge-dismisses-suit-035900442.html">Archived</a> from the original on November 18, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">November 18,</span> 2023</span> – via <a href="/info/en/?search=Yahoo_News" class="mw-redirect" title="Yahoo News">Yahoo News</a>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=New+Hampshire+Union+Leader&rft.atitle=NH+fed+judge+dismisses+suit+to+knock+Trump+off+ballot&rft.date=2023-10-31&rft.aulast=Landrigan&rft.aufirst=Kevin&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fnh-fed-judge-dismisses-suit-035900442.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-564"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-564">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFDowney2023" class="citation news cs1">Downey, K. C. (October 30, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.wmur.com/article/new-hampshire-donald-trump-ballot-lawsuit-dismiss/45682757">"Judge dismisses candidate's lawsuit to keep Trump off New Hampshire primary ballot"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=WMUR" class="mw-redirect" title="WMUR">WMUR</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231118001727/https://www.wmur.com/article/new-hampshire-donald-trump-ballot-lawsuit-dismiss/45682757">Archived</a> from the original on November 18, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">November 18,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=WMUR&rft.atitle=Judge+dismisses+candidate%27s+lawsuit+to+keep+Trump+off+New+Hampshire+primary+ballot&rft.date=2023-10-30&rft.aulast=Downey&rft.aufirst=K.+C.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wmur.com%2Farticle%2Fnew-hampshire-donald-trump-ballot-lawsuit-dismiss%2F45682757&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-565"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-565">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFCleaves2023" class="citation news cs1">Cleaves, Ashley (December 1, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/1st-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-trump-eligibility-challenge-in-new-hampshire/">"1st Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Trump Eligibility Challenge in New Hampshire"</a>. <i>Democracy Docket</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231203195645/https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/1st-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-trump-eligibility-challenge-in-new-hampshire/">Archived</a> from the original on December 3, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 20,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Democracy+Docket&rft.atitle=1st+Circuit+Affirms+Dismissal+of+Trump+Eligibility+Challenge+in+New+Hampshire&rft.date=2023-12-01&rft.aulast=Cleaves&rft.aufirst=Ashley&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.democracydocket.com%2Fnews-alerts%2F1st-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-trump-eligibility-challenge-in-new-hampshire%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-566"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-566">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFSwoyer2023" class="citation news cs1">Swoyer, Alex (November 27, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/nov/27/trump-wins-another-ballot-challenge-federal-judge-/">"Trump wins another ballot challenge, federal judge dismisses Rhode Island case"</a>. <i>The Washington Times</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231210032145/https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/nov/27/trump-wins-another-ballot-challenge-federal-judge-/">Archived</a> from the original on December 10, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 10,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Washington+Times&rft.atitle=Trump+wins+another+ballot+challenge%2C+federal+judge+dismisses+Rhode+Island+case&rft.date=2023-11-27&rft.aulast=Swoyer&rft.aufirst=Alex&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%2Fnews%2F2023%2Fnov%2F27%2Ftrump-wins-another-ballot-challenge-federal-judge-%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-567"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-567">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMulvaney2023" class="citation news cs1">Mulvaney, Katie (November 27, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/politics/2023/11/27/trump-keeps-right-to-be-on-presidential-ballot-in-ri/71720185007/">"Suit by Republican challenger to keep Trump off the ballot in RI dismissed. What comes next?"</a>. <i>Providence Journal</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231210032145/https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/politics/2023/11/27/trump-keeps-right-to-be-on-presidential-ballot-in-ri/71720185007/">Archived</a> from the original on December 10, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 10,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Providence+Journal&rft.atitle=Suit+by+Republican+challenger+to+keep+Trump+off+the+ballot+in+RI+dismissed.+What+comes+next%3F&rft.date=2023-11-27&rft.aulast=Mulvaney&rft.aufirst=Katie&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.providencejournal.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2F2023%2F11%2F27%2Ftrump-keeps-right-to-be-on-presidential-ballot-in-ri%2F71720185007%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-568"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-568">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLebowitz2023" class="citation news cs1">Lebowitz, Megan (December 6, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/federal-judge-rejects-bid-keep-trump-ballot-arizona-rcna128239">"Federal judge rejects bid to keep Trump off the ballot in Arizona"</a>. <i>NBC News</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231210025557/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/federal-judge-rejects-bid-keep-trump-ballot-arizona-rcna128239">Archived</a> from the original on December 10, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 10,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=NBC+News&rft.atitle=Federal+judge+rejects+bid+to+keep+Trump+off+the+ballot+in+Arizona&rft.date=2023-12-06&rft.aulast=Lebowitz&rft.aufirst=Megan&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fpolitics%2Fdonald-trump%2Ffederal-judge-rejects-bid-keep-trump-ballot-arizona-rcna128239&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-569"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-569">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFCleaves2023" class="citation news cs1">Cleaves, Ashley (December 5, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/federal-judge-dismisses-trump-eligibility-challenge-in-arizona/">"Federal Judge Dismisses Trump Eligibility Challenge in Arizona"</a>. <i>Democracy Docket</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231210025557/https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/federal-judge-dismisses-trump-eligibility-challenge-in-arizona/">Archived</a> from the original on December 10, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 10,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Democracy+Docket&rft.atitle=Federal+Judge+Dismisses+Trump+Eligibility+Challenge+in+Arizona&rft.date=2023-12-05&rft.aulast=Cleaves&rft.aufirst=Ashley&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.democracydocket.com%2Fnews-alerts%2Ffederal-judge-dismisses-trump-eligibility-challenge-in-arizona%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Dickerson-570"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Dickerson_570-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Dickerson_570-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFDickerson2023" class="citation news cs1">Dickerson, Chris (December 21, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://wvrecord.com/stories/653224464-federal-judge-dismisses-attempt-to-keep-trump-off-west-virginia-ballot">"Federal judge dismisses attempt to keep Trump off West Virginia ballot"</a>. <i>West Virginia Record</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231223115251/https://wvrecord.com/stories/653224464-federal-judge-dismisses-attempt-to-keep-trump-off-west-virginia-ballot">Archived</a> from the original on December 23, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 23,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=West+Virginia+Record&rft.atitle=Federal+judge+dismisses+attempt+to+keep+Trump+off+West+Virginia+ballot&rft.date=2023-12-21&rft.aulast=Dickerson&rft.aufirst=Chris&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwvrecord.com%2Fstories%2F653224464-federal-judge-dismisses-attempt-to-keep-trump-off-west-virginia-ballot&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-571"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-571">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMcElhinny2023" class="citation news cs1">McElhinny, Brad (December 22, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://wvmetronews.com/2023/12/22/lawsuit-to-boot-trump-off-west-virginia-ballots-is-dismissed-because-plaintiff-lacks-standing/">"Lawsuit to boot Trump off West Virginia ballots is dismissed because plaintiff lacks standing"</a>. <i>MetroNews</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231223115251/https://wvmetronews.com/2023/12/22/lawsuit-to-boot-trump-off-west-virginia-ballots-is-dismissed-because-plaintiff-lacks-standing/">Archived</a> from the original on December 23, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 23,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=MetroNews&rft.atitle=Lawsuit+to+boot+Trump+off+West+Virginia+ballots+is+dismissed+because+plaintiff+lacks+standing&rft.date=2023-12-22&rft.aulast=McElhinny&rft.aufirst=Brad&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwvmetronews.com%2F2023%2F12%2F22%2Flawsuit-to-boot-trump-off-west-virginia-ballots-is-dismissed-because-plaintiff-lacks-standing%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-572"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-572">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFSullivan2023" class="citation news cs1">Sullivan, Becky (December 21, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection">"What's next after Colorado? Here's where other challenges to Trump's candidacy stand"</a>. <i>NPR</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231222190817/https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection">Archived</a> from the original on December 22, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 23,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=NPR&rft.atitle=What%27s+next+after+Colorado%3F+Here%27s+where+other+challenges+to+Trump%27s+candidacy+stand&rft.date=2023-12-21&rft.aulast=Sullivan&rft.aufirst=Becky&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2F2023%2F12%2F21%2F1220769191%2Fcolorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-573"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-573">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMitropoulos2024" class="citation news cs1">Mitropoulos, Arielle (January 2, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.wmur.com/article/lawsuit-donald-trump-new-hampshire-ballot-010224/46269696">"Little-known candidate files another lawsuit to block Trump from New Hampshire ballot"</a>. <i>WMUR</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240105050226/https://www.wmur.com/article/lawsuit-donald-trump-new-hampshire-ballot-010224/46269696">Archived</a> from the original on January 5, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 5,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=WMUR&rft.atitle=Little-known+candidate+files+another+lawsuit+to+block+Trump+from+New+Hampshire+ballot&rft.date=2024-01-02&rft.aulast=Mitropoulos&rft.aufirst=Arielle&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wmur.com%2Farticle%2Flawsuit-donald-trump-new-hampshire-ballot-010224%2F46269696&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-574"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-574">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFWinger2023" class="citation news cs1">Winger, Richard (August 12, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://ballot-access.org/2023/10/12/john-anthony-castro-files-brief-in-eleventh-circuit-in-florida-trump-ballot-access-case/">"John Anthony Castro Files Brief in Eleventh Circuit in Florida Trump Ballot Access Case"</a>. <i>Ballot Access News</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240107020838/https://ballot-access.org/2023/10/12/john-anthony-castro-files-brief-in-eleventh-circuit-in-florida-trump-ballot-access-case/">Archived</a> from the original on January 7, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 5,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Ballot+Access+News&rft.atitle=John+Anthony+Castro+Files+Brief+in+Eleventh+Circuit+in+Florida+Trump+Ballot+Access+Case&rft.date=2023-08-12&rft.aulast=Winger&rft.aufirst=Richard&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fballot-access.org%2F2023%2F10%2F12%2Fjohn-anthony-castro-files-brief-in-eleventh-circuit-in-florida-trump-ballot-access-case%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-575"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-575">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFStanton2024" class="citation news cs1">Stanton, Andrew (January 2, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-ballot-challenge-john-anthony-castro-1857069">"Donald Trump's Biggest Ballot Case Hasn't Happened Yet"</a>. <i>Newsweek</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240105001243/https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-ballot-challenge-john-anthony-castro-1857069">Archived</a> from the original on January 5, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 5,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Newsweek&rft.atitle=Donald+Trump%27s+Biggest+Ballot+Case+Hasn%27t+Happened+Yet&rft.date=2024-01-02&rft.aulast=Stanton&rft.aufirst=Andrew&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fdonald-trump-ballot-challenge-john-anthony-castro-1857069&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-576"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-576">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFAdams2023" class="citation news cs1">Adams, Steven Allen (December 28, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.mariettatimes.com/news/local-news/2023/12/dismissal-of-lawsuit-to-keep-trump-off-w-va-ballot-appealed/">"Dismissal of lawsuit to keep Trump off W.Va. ballot appealed"</a>. <i>The Marietta Times</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231228075245/https://www.mariettatimes.com/news/local-news/2023/12/dismissal-of-lawsuit-to-keep-trump-off-w-va-ballot-appealed/">Archived</a> from the original on December 28, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 5,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Marietta+Times&rft.atitle=Dismissal+of+lawsuit+to+keep+Trump+off+W.Va.+ballot+appealed&rft.date=2023-12-28&rft.aulast=Adams&rft.aufirst=Steven+Allen&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mariettatimes.com%2Fnews%2Flocal-news%2F2023%2F12%2Fdismissal-of-lawsuit-to-keep-trump-off-w-va-ballot-appealed%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-577"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-577">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFRobertson2024" class="citation news cs1">Robertson, Nick (January 9, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4398648-judge-rejects-trump-14th-amendment-claim-nevada/">"Judge rejects Trump 14th Amendment claim in Nevada by GOP political competitor"</a>. <i>The Hill</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 21,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Hill&rft.atitle=Judge+rejects+Trump+14th+Amendment+claim+in+Nevada+by+GOP+political+competitor&rft.date=2024-01-09&rft.aulast=Robertson&rft.aufirst=Nick&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fregulation%2Fcourt-battles%2F4398648-judge-rejects-trump-14th-amendment-claim-nevada%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-578"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-578">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFRodriguez2024" class="citation news cs1">Rodriguez, Vince (January 12, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.koat.com/article/donald-trump-on-election-ballot-new-mexico/46366890">"Judge dismisses lawsuit seeking to remove Donald Trump from ballot in New Mexico"</a>. <i>KOAT7</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">February 5,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=KOAT7&rft.atitle=Judge+dismisses+lawsuit+seeking+to+remove+Donald+Trump+from+ballot+in+New+Mexico&rft.date=2024-01-12&rft.aulast=Rodriguez&rft.aufirst=Vince&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.koat.com%2Farticle%2Fdonald-trump-on-election-ballot-new-mexico%2F46366890&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-579"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-579">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFWinger2024" class="citation news cs1">Winger, Richard (January 29, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://ballot-access.org/2024/01/29/u-s-district-court-in-alaska-dismisses-anti-trump-ballot-access-case/">"U.S. District Court in Alaska Dismisses Anti-Trump Ballot Access Case"</a><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 31,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=U.S.+District+Court+in+Alaska+Dismisses+Anti-Trump+Ballot+Access+Case&rft.date=2024-01-29&rft.aulast=Winger&rft.aufirst=Richard&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fballot-access.org%2F2024%2F01%2F29%2Fu-s-district-court-in-alaska-dismisses-anti-trump-ballot-access-case%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-580"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-580">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFWyland2024" class="citation news cs1">Wyland, Scott (January 13, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/judge-rejects-lawsuit-to-keep-trump-off-new-mexico-ballot/article_5b908044-b24d-11ee-8a57-fb15f989cfb3.html">"Judge rejects lawsuit to keep Trump off New Mexico ballot"</a>. <i>Santa Fe New Mexican</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">February 5,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Santa+Fe+New+Mexican&rft.atitle=Judge+rejects+lawsuit+to+keep+Trump+off+New+Mexico+ballot&rft.date=2024-01-13&rft.aulast=Wyland&rft.aufirst=Scott&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.santafenewmexican.com%2Fnews%2Flocal_news%2Fjudge-rejects-lawsuit-to-keep-trump-off-new-mexico-ballot%2Farticle_5b908044-b24d-11ee-8a57-fb15f989cfb3.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-581"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-581">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFWinger2024" class="citation news cs1">Winger, Richard (January 4, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://ballot-access.org/2024/01/04/u-s-district-court-in-california-keeps-donald-trump-on-the-republican-presidential-primary-ballot/">"U.S. District Court in California Keeps Donald Trump on the Republican Presidential Primary Ballot"</a>. <i>Ballot Access News</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 26,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Ballot+Access+News&rft.atitle=U.S.+District+Court+in+California+Keeps+Donald+Trump+on+the+Republican+Presidential+Primary+Ballot&rft.date=2024-01-04&rft.aulast=Winger&rft.aufirst=Richard&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fballot-access.org%2F2024%2F01%2F04%2Fu-s-district-court-in-california-keeps-donald-trump-on-the-republican-presidential-primary-ballot%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-582"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-582">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFSanford2023" class="citation news cs1">Sanford, Nate (November 30, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.inlander.com/news/spokane-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-attempting-to-remove-trump-from-washingtons-2024-ballot-27051864">"Spokane judge dismisses lawsuit attempting to remove Trump from Washington's 2024 ballot"</a>. <i>Inlander</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231209222311/https://www.inlander.com/news/spokane-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-attempting-to-remove-trump-from-washingtons-2024-ballot-27051864">Archived</a> from the original on December 9, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 10,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Inlander&rft.atitle=Spokane+judge+dismisses+lawsuit+attempting+to+remove+Trump+from+Washington%27s+2024+ballot&rft.date=2023-11-30&rft.aulast=Sanford&rft.aufirst=Nate&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.inlander.com%2Fnews%2Fspokane-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-attempting-to-remove-trump-from-washingtons-2024-ballot-27051864&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-583"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-583">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMurray2023" class="citation news cs1">Murray, Isabella (December 9, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/14th-amendment-lawsuits-seeking-bar-trump-failing/story?id=105391248">"Why are the 14th Amendment lawsuits seeking to bar Trump failing?"</a>. <i>ABC News</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231209011811/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/14th-amendment-lawsuits-seeking-bar-trump-failing/story?id=105391248">Archived</a> from the original on December 9, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">October 12,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=ABC+News&rft.atitle=Why+are+the+14th+Amendment+lawsuits+seeking+to+bar+Trump+failing%3F&rft.date=2023-12-09&rft.aulast=Murray&rft.aufirst=Isabella&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FPolitics%2F14th-amendment-lawsuits-seeking-bar-trump-failing%2Fstory%3Fid%3D105391248&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-584"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-584">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFAnderson2024" class="citation news cs1">Anderson, Natalie (January 5, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.pilotonline.com/2024/01/05/why-efforts-to-remove-trump-from-virginias-primary-ballot-failed/">"Why efforts to remove Trump from Virginia's primary ballot failed"</a>. <i>The Virginian-Pilot</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240106074514/https://www.pilotonline.com/2024/01/05/why-efforts-to-remove-trump-from-virginias-primary-ballot-failed/">Archived</a> from the original on January 6, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 5,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Virginian-Pilot&rft.atitle=Why+efforts+to+remove+Trump+from+Virginia%27s+primary+ballot+failed&rft.date=2024-01-05&rft.aulast=Anderson&rft.aufirst=Natalie&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pilotonline.com%2F2024%2F01%2F05%2Fwhy-efforts-to-remove-trump-from-virginias-primary-ballot-failed%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-585"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-585">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFWallace2023" class="citation web cs1">Wallace, Sarah B. (November 17, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf">"Case No.: 2023CV32577 Division: 209 FINAL ORDER"</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span>. <i>Colorado Judicial Branch</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231118203814/https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf">Archived</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span> from the original on November 18, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">November 27,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Colorado+Judicial+Branch&rft.atitle=Case+No.%3A+2023CV32577+Division%3A+209+FINAL+ORDER&rft.date=2023-11-17&rft.aulast=Wallace&rft.aufirst=Sarah+B.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.courts.state.co.us%2Fuserfiles%2Ffile%2FCourt_Probation%2F02nd_Judicial_District%2FDenver_District_Court%2F11_17_2023%2520Final%2520Order.pdf&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-586"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-586">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFAstor2023" class="citation news cs1">Astor, Maggie (November 17, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/17/us/politics/colorado-trump-14th-amendment.html">"Colorado Judge Keeps Trump on Ballot but Finds He 'Engaged in Insurrection'<span class="cs1-kern-right"></span>"</a>. <i>The New York Times</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231209112759/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/17/us/politics/colorado-trump-14th-amendment.html">Archived</a> from the original on December 9, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 20,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+New+York+Times&rft.atitle=Colorado+Judge+Keeps+Trump+on+Ballot+but+Finds+He+%27Engaged+in+Insurrection%27&rft.date=2023-11-17&rft.aulast=Astor&rft.aufirst=Maggie&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2023%2F11%2F17%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fcolorado-trump-14th-amendment.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-587"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-587">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFCohen2023" class="citation news cs1">Cohen, Marshall (November 18, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment-insurrection/index.html">"Colorado judge keeps Trump on 2024 primary ballot as latest 14th Amendment case falters"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=CNN" title="CNN">CNN</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231118001227/https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment-insurrection/index.html">Archived</a> from the original on November 18, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">November 18,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=CNN&rft.atitle=Colorado+judge+keeps+Trump+on+2024+primary+ballot+as+latest+14th+Amendment+case+falters&rft.date=2023-11-18&rft.aulast=Cohen&rft.aufirst=Marshall&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2023%2F11%2F17%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment-insurrection%2Findex.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-588"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-588">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFRichardsGrumbach2023" class="citation news cs1">Richards, Zoë; Grumbach, Gary (November 18, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/colorado-judge-rejects-bid-keep-trump-2024-ballot-rcna125451">"Colorado judge rejects bid to keep Trump off the state's 2024 ballot"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=NBC_News" title="NBC News">NBC News</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231118001910/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/colorado-judge-rejects-bid-keep-trump-2024-ballot-rcna125451">Archived</a> from the original on November 18, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">November 18,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=NBC+News&rft.atitle=Colorado+judge+rejects+bid+to+keep+Trump+off+the+state%27s+2024+ballot&rft.date=2023-11-18&rft.aulast=Richards&rft.aufirst=Zo%C3%AB&rft.au=Grumbach%2C+Gary&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fpolitics%2Fdonald-trump%2Fcolorado-judge-rejects-bid-keep-trump-2024-ballot-rcna125451&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-589"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-589">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFRiccardi2023" class="citation news cs1">Riccardi, Nicholas (November 22, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-appeal-colorado-7436a07c9d0259bba9a13136c541cf2c">"Colorado Supreme Court will hear appeal of ruling that Trump can stay on ballot despite insurrection"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Associated_Press" title="Associated Press">Associated Press</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231124020230/https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-appeal-colorado-7436a07c9d0259bba9a13136c541cf2c">Archived</a> from the original on November 24, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">November 24,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Associated+Press&rft.atitle=Colorado+Supreme+Court+will+hear+appeal+of+ruling+that+Trump+can+stay+on+ballot+despite+insurrection&rft.date=2023-11-22&rft.aulast=Riccardi&rft.aufirst=Nicholas&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fapnews.com%2Farticle%2Ftrump-insurrection-14th-amendment-appeal-colorado-7436a07c9d0259bba9a13136c541cf2c&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-590"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-590">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFAstor2023" class="citation news cs1">Astor, Maggie (December 19, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/12/19/us/trump-colorado-ballot-news">"Trump Ballot Ruling – Trump Is Disqualified From the 2024 Ballot, Colorado Supreme Court Rules – Former President Donald J. Trump's campaign said it planned to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=The_New_York_Times" title="The New York Times">The New York Times</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://archive.today/20231220012941/https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/12/19/us/trump-colorado-ballot-news">Archived</a> from the original on December 20, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 19,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+New+York+Times&rft.atitle=Trump+Ballot+Ruling+%E2%80%93+Trump+Is+Disqualified+From+the+2024+Ballot%2C+Colorado+Supreme+Court+Rules+%E2%80%93+Former+President+Donald+J.+Trump%27s+campaign+said+it+planned+to+appeal+the+decision+to+the+U.S.+Supreme+Court.&rft.date=2023-12-19&rft.aulast=Astor&rft.aufirst=Maggie&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2Flive%2F2023%2F12%2F19%2Fus%2Ftrump-colorado-ballot-news&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-591"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-591">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFCohen2023" class="citation news cs1">Cohen, Marshall (December 19, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics/trump-colorado-supreme-court-14th-amendment/index.html">"Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from 2024 ballot based on 14th Amendment's 'insurrectionist ban'<span class="cs1-kern-right"></span>"</a>. CNN. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231219232917/https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics/trump-colorado-supreme-court-14th-amendment/index.html">Archived</a> from the original on December 19, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 19,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Colorado+Supreme+Court+removes+Trump+from+2024+ballot+based+on+14th+Amendment%27s+%27insurrectionist+ban%27&rft.date=2023-12-19&rft.aulast=Cohen&rft.aufirst=Marshall&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2023%2F12%2F19%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-colorado-supreme-court-14th-amendment%2Findex.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-592"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-592">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFGrumbachGregorian2023" class="citation news cs1">Grumbach, Gary; Gregorian, Dareh (December 19, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/colorado-supreme-court-kicks-trump-states-2024-ballot-violating-us-con-rcna130484">"Colorado Supreme Court kicks Trump off the state's 2024 ballot for violating the U.S. Constitution"</a>. NBC News. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231219232506/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/colorado-supreme-court-kicks-trump-states-2024-ballot-violating-us-con-rcna130484">Archived</a> from the original on December 19, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 19,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Colorado+Supreme+Court+kicks+Trump+off+the+state%27s+2024+ballot+for+violating+the+U.S.+Constitution&rft.date=2023-12-19&rft.aulast=Grumbach&rft.aufirst=Gary&rft.au=Gregorian%2C+Dareh&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fpolitics%2Fdonald-trump%2Fcolorado-supreme-court-kicks-trump-states-2024-ballot-violating-us-con-rcna130484&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-593"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-593">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFKruzel2023" class="citation news cs1">Kruzel, John (December 28, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republicans-appeal-trump-colorado-ballot-disqualification-us-supreme-court-2023-12-28/">"Republicans appeal Trump Colorado ballot disqualification to US Supreme Court - attorney"</a>. <i>Reuters</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 28,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Reuters&rft.atitle=Republicans+appeal+Trump+Colorado+ballot+disqualification+to+US+Supreme+Court+-+attorney&rft.date=2023-12-28&rft.aulast=Kruzel&rft.aufirst=John&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Fworld%2Fus%2Frepublicans-appeal-trump-colorado-ballot-disqualification-us-supreme-court-2023-12-28%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-594"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-594">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFRiccardi2023" class="citation news cs1">Riccardi, Nicholas (December 27, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2023/12/27/colorado-gop-appeals-decision-disqualifying-donald-trump-2024/72043874007/">"Colorado Republicans appeal decision disqualifying Donald Trump from 2024 ballot to the Supreme Court"</a>. <i>USA Today</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231228022556/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2023/12/27/colorado-gop-appeals-decision-disqualifying-donald-trump-2024/72043874007/">Archived</a> from the original on December 28, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 28,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=USA+Today&rft.atitle=Colorado+Republicans+appeal+decision+disqualifying+Donald+Trump+from+2024+ballot+to+the+Supreme+Court&rft.date=2023-12-27&rft.aulast=Riccardi&rft.aufirst=Nicholas&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Felections%2F2023%2F12%2F27%2Fcolorado-gop-appeals-decision-disqualifying-donald-trump-2024%2F72043874007%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-595"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-595">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMarleyMarrimow2024" class="citation news cs1">Marley, Patrick; Marrimow, Ann E. (January 3, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/03/trump-colorado-ballot-appeal/">"Trump asks Supreme Court to keep his name on Colorado ballot"</a>. <i>The Washington Post</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240104072518/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/03/trump-colorado-ballot-appeal/">Archived</a> from the original on January 4, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 4,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Washington+Post&rft.atitle=Trump+asks+Supreme+Court+to+keep+his+name+on+Colorado+ballot&rft.date=2024-01-03&rft.aulast=Marley&rft.aufirst=Patrick&rft.au=Marrimow%2C+Ann+E.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fpolitics%2F2024%2F01%2F03%2Ftrump-colorado-ballot-appeal%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-:3-596"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-:3_596-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://archive.today/20240105223555/https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/010524zr2_886b.pdf">"Trump v. Anderson - Certiorari Granted"</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span>. <i>Supreme Court of the United States</i>. January 5, 2024. Archived from <a class="external text" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/010524zr2_886b.pdf">the original</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span> on January 5, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 5,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Supreme+Court+of+the+United+States&rft.atitle=Trump+v.+Anderson+-+Certiorari+Granted&rft.date=2024-01-05&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2Forders%2Fcourtorders%2F010524zr2_886b.pdf&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-597"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-597">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf">"Order Affirmed in Part and Reversed in Part"</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span>. <i>Anderson v. Griswold</i>. 2023. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231219232322/https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf">Archived</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span> from the original on December 19, 2023.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Anderson+v.+Griswold&rft.atitle=Order+Affirmed+in+Part+and+Reversed+in+Part&rft.date=2023&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.courts.state.co.us%2Fuserfiles%2Ffile%2FCourt_Probation%2FSupreme_Court%2FOpinions%2F2023%2F23SA300.pdf&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-598"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-598">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation news cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/12/20/remarks-by-president-biden-after-air-force-one-arrival-milwaukee-wi/">"Remarks by President Biden After Air Force One Arrival | Milwaukee, WI"</a>. <i>The White House</i>. December 20, 2023. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240109042743/https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/12/20/remarks-by-president-biden-after-air-force-one-arrival-milwaukee-wi/">Archived</a> from the original on January 9, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 9,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+White+House&rft.atitle=Remarks+by+President+Biden+After+Air+Force+One+Arrival+%26%23124%3B+Milwaukee%2C+WI&rft.date=2023-12-20&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fbriefing-room%2Fspeeches-remarks%2F2023%2F12%2F20%2Fremarks-by-president-biden-after-air-force-one-arrival-milwaukee-wi%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-599"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-599">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFRamosDodge2024" class="citation news cs1">Ramos, Andrew; Dodge, John (January 4, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/voters-seek-to-have-donald-trump-removed-from-illinois-primary-ballot/">"Voters seek to have Donald Trump removed from Illinois Primary ballot"</a>. <a href="/info/en/?search=WBBM-TV" title="WBBM-TV">WBBM</a>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240104235323/https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/voters-seek-to-have-donald-trump-removed-from-illinois-primary-ballot/">Archived</a> from the original on January 4, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 5,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Voters+seek+to+have+Donald+Trump+removed+from+Illinois+Primary+ballot&rft.date=2024-01-04&rft.aulast=Ramos&rft.aufirst=Andrew&rft.au=Dodge%2C+John&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fchicago%2Fnews%2Fvoters-seek-to-have-donald-trump-removed-from-illinois-primary-ballot%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-600"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-600">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMcKinney2024" class="citation news cs1">McKinney, Dave (January 4, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.wbez.org/stories/trumps-candidacy-is-challenged-by-a-group-of-illinois-residents/6fd7f8c7-36cb-47bd-b278-f42333d3c0e5">"Trump's candidacy is challenged by a group of Illinois residents"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=WBEZ" title="WBEZ">WBEZ</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240104160210/https://www.wbez.org/stories/trumps-candidacy-is-challenged-by-a-group-of-illinois-residents/6fd7f8c7-36cb-47bd-b278-f42333d3c0e5">Archived</a> from the original on January 4, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 4,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=WBEZ&rft.atitle=Trump%27s+candidacy+is+challenged+by+a+group+of+Illinois+residents&rft.date=2024-01-04&rft.aulast=McKinney&rft.aufirst=Dave&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wbez.org%2Fstories%2Ftrumps-candidacy-is-challenged-by-a-group-of-illinois-residents%2F6fd7f8c7-36cb-47bd-b278-f42333d3c0e5&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-601"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-601">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFCohen2024" class="citation news cs1">Cohen, Marshall (January 26, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/26/politics/illinois-14th-amendment-trump-january-6/index.html">"Illinois election board hears objection to Trump candidacy based on January 6 insurrection"</a>. <i>CNN</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 27,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=CNN&rft.atitle=Illinois+election+board+hears+objection+to+Trump+candidacy+based+on+January+6+insurrection&rft.date=2024-01-26&rft.aulast=Cohen&rft.aufirst=Marshall&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F2024%2F01%2F26%2Fpolitics%2Fillinois-14th-amendment-trump-january-6%2Findex.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-602"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-602">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMcKinney2024" class="citation news cs1">McKinney, Dave (January 28, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.wbez.org/stories/trumps-candidacy-on-the-illinois-ballot-should-be-decided-by-the-courts-hearing-officer-says/e9af3a79-7e96-4429-8bf0-282833888bb2">"Trump's candidacy on the Illinois ballot should be decided by the courts, an elections board hearing officer says"</a>. <i>WBEZ Chicago</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 29,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=WBEZ+Chicago&rft.atitle=Trump%E2%80%99s+candidacy+on+the+Illinois+ballot+should+be+decided+by+the+courts%2C+an+elections+board+hearing+officer+says&rft.date=2024-01-28&rft.aulast=McKinney&rft.aufirst=Dave&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wbez.org%2Fstories%2Ftrumps-candidacy-on-the-illinois-ballot-should-be-decided-by-the-courts-hearing-officer-says%2Fe9af3a79-7e96-4429-8bf0-282833888bb2&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-603"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-603">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFCohen2024" class="citation news cs1">Cohen, Marshall (January 30, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/30/politics/donald-trump-illinois-14th-amendment/index.html">"Bipartisan Illinois election board dismisses 14th Amendment case against Trump"</a><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 31,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Bipartisan+Illinois+election+board+dismisses+14th+Amendment+case+against+Trump&rft.date=2024-01-30&rft.aulast=Cohen&rft.aufirst=Marshall&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F2024%2F01%2F30%2Fpolitics%2Fdonald-trump-illinois-14th-amendment%2Findex.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-604"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-604">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFVinicky2024" class="citation news cs1">Vinicky, Amanda (January 31, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://news.wttw.com/2024/01/31/effort-remove-donald-trump-illinois-primary-ballot-continues-state-court">"Effort to Remove Donald Trump From the Illinois Primary Ballot Continues in State Court"</a>. <i>WTTW News</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">February 2,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=WTTW+News&rft.atitle=Effort+to+Remove+Donald+Trump+From+the+Illinois+Primary+Ballot+Continues+in+State+Court&rft.date=2024-01-31&rft.aulast=Vinicky&rft.aufirst=Amanda&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.wttw.com%2F2024%2F01%2F31%2Feffort-remove-donald-trump-illinois-primary-ballot-continues-state-court&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-605"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-605">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFHancock2024" class="citation news cs1">Hancock, Peter (February 7, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.nprillinois.org/illinois/2024-02-07/trumps-illinois-ballot-challenge-to-move-forward">"Trump's Illinois ballot challenge to move forward"</a>. <i>NPR-Illinois (UIS 91.9)</i>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=NPR-Illinois+%28UIS+91.9%29&rft.atitle=Trump%27s+Illinois+ballot+challenge+to+move+forward&rft.date=2024-02-07&rft.aulast=Hancock&rft.aufirst=Peter&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nprillinois.org%2Fillinois%2F2024-02-07%2Ftrumps-illinois-ballot-challenge-to-move-forward&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-606"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-606">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFSmith2024" class="citation web cs1">Smith, Mitch (February 28, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/28/us/trump-removal-illinois-primary-ballot.html">"Judge Orders Trump Removed From Illinois Primary Ballots"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=The_New_York_Times" title="The New York Times">The New York Times</a></i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">February 28,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=The+New+York+Times&rft.atitle=Judge+Orders+Trump+Removed+From+Illinois+Primary+Ballots&rft.date=2024-02-28&rft.aulast=Smith&rft.aufirst=Mitch&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F02%2F28%2Fus%2Ftrump-removal-illinois-primary-ballot.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-607"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-607">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.scribd.com/document/709350212/Trump-Ruling">"Trump Ruling (PDF)"</a>. <i>Scribd</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">February 29,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Scribd&rft.atitle=Trump+Ruling+%28PDF%29&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scribd.com%2Fdocument%2F709350212%2FTrump-Ruling&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-608"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-608">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFCohen2024" class="citation news cs1">Cohen, Marshall (February 29, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/29/politics/trump-appeals-illinois-decision/index.html">"Trump appeals judge's decision that disqualified him from Illinois ballots"</a>. <i>CNN</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">February 29,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=CNN&rft.atitle=Trump+appeals+judge%E2%80%99s+decision+that+disqualified+him+from+Illinois+ballots&rft.date=2024-02-29&rft.aulast=Cohen&rft.aufirst=Marshall&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F2024%2F02%2F29%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-appeals-illinois-decision%2Findex.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-610"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-610">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFWilliamsRiccardi2023" class="citation news cs1">Williams, Corey; Riccardi, Nicholas (November 14, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-ballot-michigan-b2a870f98a60dffbe4c9566cfe97457c">"Michigan judge says Trump can stay on primary ballot, rejecting challenge under insurrection clause"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Associated_Press" title="Associated Press">Associated Press</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231114220046/https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-ballot-michigan-b2a870f98a60dffbe4c9566cfe97457c">Archived</a> from the original on November 14, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">November 14,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Associated+Press&rft.atitle=Michigan+judge+says+Trump+can+stay+on+primary+ballot%2C+rejecting+challenge+under+insurrection+clause&rft.date=2023-11-14&rft.aulast=Williams&rft.aufirst=Corey&rft.au=Riccardi%2C+Nicholas&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fapnews.com%2Farticle%2Ftrump-insurrection-14th-amendment-ballot-michigan-b2a870f98a60dffbe4c9566cfe97457c&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-611"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-611">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/ab30b95f96a68053/ce7b0cfb-full.pdf">"Trump v. Benson, 23-000151-MZ, Michigan Court of Claims"</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231115111938/https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/ab30b95f96a68053/ce7b0cfb-full.pdf">Archived</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span> from the original on November 15, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 20,</span> 2023</span> – via The New York Times.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Trump+v.+Benson%2C+23-000151-MZ%2C+Michigan+Court+of+Claims&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic01.nyt.com%2Fnewsgraphics%2Fdocumenttools%2Fab30b95f96a68053%2Fce7b0cfb-full.pdf&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Riccardi-Michigan-612"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-Riccardi-Michigan_612-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFRiccardi2023" class="citation news cs1">Riccardi, Nicholas (November 18, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055">"Colorado judge finds Trump engaged in insurrection, but rejects constitutional ballot challenge"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Associated_Press" title="Associated Press">Associated Press</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231118003915/https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055">Archived</a> from the original on November 18, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">November 18,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Associated+Press&rft.atitle=Colorado+judge+finds+Trump+engaged+in+insurrection%2C+but+rejects+constitutional+ballot+challenge&rft.date=2023-11-18&rft.aulast=Riccardi&rft.aufirst=Nicholas&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fapnews.com%2Farticle%2Ftrump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Robertson-613"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-Robertson_613-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFRobertson2023" class="citation news cs1">Robertson, Nick (November 17, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4315316-activists-trump-14th-amendment-fight-michigan-supreme-court/">"Activists take Trump 14th Amendment fight to Michigan Supreme Court"</a>. <i>The Hill</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231203114631/https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4315316-activists-trump-14th-amendment-fight-michigan-supreme-court/">Archived</a> from the original on December 3, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 20,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Hill&rft.atitle=Activists+take+Trump+14th+Amendment+fight+to+Michigan+Supreme+Court&rft.date=2023-11-17&rft.aulast=Robertson&rft.aufirst=Nick&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fregulation%2Fcourt-battles%2F4315316-activists-trump-14th-amendment-fight-michigan-supreme-court%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-614"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-614">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFOosting2023" class="citation news cs1">Oosting, Jonathan (December 14, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/michigan-appeals-court-trump-must-be-presidential-primary-ballot">"Michigan appeals court: Trump 'must' be on presidential primary ballot"</a>. <i>Bridge Michigan</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231215134032/https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/michigan-appeals-court-trump-must-be-presidential-primary-ballot">Archived</a> from the original on December 15, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 16,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Bridge+Michigan&rft.atitle=Michigan+appeals+court%3A+Trump+%27must%27+be+on+presidential+primary+ballot&rft.date=2023-12-14&rft.aulast=Oosting&rft.aufirst=Jonathan&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bridgemi.com%2Fmichigan-government%2Fmichigan-appeals-court-trump-must-be-presidential-primary-ballot&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-615"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-615">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMurray2023" class="citation news cs1">Murray, Isabella (December 15, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michigan-court-appeals-rules-trump-remain-2024-ballot/story?id=105675899">"Michigan Court of Appeals rules Trump can remain on 2024 GOP primary ballot"</a>. <i>ABC News</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231216004002/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michigan-court-appeals-rules-trump-remain-2024-ballot/story?id=105675899">Archived</a> from the original on December 16, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 16,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=ABC+News&rft.atitle=Michigan+Court+of+Appeals+rules+Trump+can+remain+on+2024+GOP+primary+ballot&rft.date=2023-12-15&rft.aulast=Murray&rft.aufirst=Isabella&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FPolitics%2Fmichigan-court-appeals-rules-trump-remain-2024-ballot%2Fstory%3Fid%3D105675899&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-616"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-616">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFPluta2023" class="citation news cs1">Pluta, Rick (December 19, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.wkar.org/2023-12-19/michigan-supreme-court-filing-seeks-to-block-trump-from-state-primary-ballot">"Michigan Supreme Court filing seeks to block Trump from state primary ballot"</a>. <i>WKAR</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231219230622/https://www.wkar.org/2023-12-19/michigan-supreme-court-filing-seeks-to-block-trump-from-state-primary-ballot">Archived</a> from the original on December 19, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 20,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=WKAR&rft.atitle=Michigan+Supreme+Court+filing+seeks+to+block+Trump+from+state+primary+ballot&rft.date=2023-12-19&rft.aulast=Pluta&rft.aufirst=Rick&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wkar.org%2F2023-12-19%2Fmichigan-supreme-court-filing-seeks-to-block-trump-from-state-primary-ballot&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-617"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-617">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFWilliamsRiccardi2023" class="citation news cs1">Williams, Corey; Riccardi, Nicholas (December 27, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-ballot-michigan-colorado-b5a5d9ffa75efa63ab4780b04329e2a2">"Michigan Supreme Court will keep Trump on 2024 ballot"</a>. Associated Press. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231227143109/https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-ballot-michigan-colorado-b5a5d9ffa75efa63ab4780b04329e2a2">Archived</a> from the original on December 27, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 27,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Michigan+Supreme+Court+will+keep+Trump+on+2024+ballot&rft.date=2023-12-27&rft.aulast=Williams&rft.aufirst=Corey&rft.au=Riccardi%2C+Nicholas&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fapnews.com%2Farticle%2Ftrump-insurrection-14th-amendment-ballot-michigan-colorado-b5a5d9ffa75efa63ab4780b04329e2a2&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-618"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-618">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFKarnowskiRiccardi2023" class="citation news cs1">Karnowski, Steve; Riccardi, Nicholas (November 8, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-election-president-f6b72c94bb351c1b870d4884e54f6a75">"Minnesota Supreme Court dismisses 'insurrection clause' challenge and allows Trump on primary ballot"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Associated_Press" title="Associated Press">Associated Press</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231118005607/https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-election-president-f6b72c94bb351c1b870d4884e54f6a75">Archived</a> from the original on November 18, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">November 18,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Associated+Press&rft.atitle=Minnesota+Supreme+Court+dismisses+%27insurrection+clause%27+challenge+and+allows+Trump+on+primary+ballot&rft.date=2023-11-08&rft.aulast=Karnowski&rft.aufirst=Steve&rft.au=Riccardi%2C+Nicholas&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fapnews.com%2Farticle%2Ftrump-insurrection-election-president-f6b72c94bb351c1b870d4884e54f6a75&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-619"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-619">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFCohen2023" class="citation news cs1">Cohen, Marshall (November 8, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/08/politics/minnesota-14th-amendment-trump/index.html">"Minnesota Supreme Court won't remove Trump from GOP primary ballot in 14th Amendment challenge"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=CNN" title="CNN">CNN</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231109000327/https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/08/politics/minnesota-14th-amendment-trump/index.html">Archived</a> from the original on November 9, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">November 9,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=CNN&rft.atitle=Minnesota+Supreme+Court+won%27t+remove+Trump+from+GOP+primary+ballot+in+14th+Amendment+challenge&rft.date=2023-11-08&rft.aulast=Cohen&rft.aufirst=Marshall&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2023%2F11%2F08%2Fpolitics%2Fminnesota-14th-amendment-trump%2Findex.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-620"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-620">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFShumway2023" class="citation news cs1">Shumway, Julia (December 6, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2023/12/06/group-sues-oregon-secretary-of-state-griffin-valade-to-keep-trump-off-ballot/">"Group sues Oregon Secretary of State Griffin-Valade to keep Trump off ballot"</a>. <i>Oregon Capital Chronicle</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231207015757/https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2023/12/06/group-sues-oregon-secretary-of-state-griffin-valade-to-keep-trump-off-ballot/">Archived</a> from the original on December 7, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 7,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Oregon+Capital+Chronicle&rft.atitle=Group+sues+Oregon+Secretary+of+State+Griffin-Valade+to+keep+Trump+off+ballot&rft.date=2023-12-06&rft.aulast=Shumway&rft.aufirst=Julia&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Foregoncapitalchronicle.com%2F2023%2F12%2F06%2Fgroup-sues-oregon-secretary-of-state-griffin-valade-to-keep-trump-off-ballot%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-621"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-621">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFCohen2023" class="citation news cs1">Cohen, Michael (December 6, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/colorado-trump-14th-amendment-12-06-23/h_7638191da48331ce65087e2c93db15e7">"Another 14th Amendment challenge pops up in Oregon"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=CNN" title="CNN">CNN</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231207180428/https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/colorado-trump-14th-amendment-12-06-23/h_7638191da48331ce65087e2c93db15e7">Archived</a> from the original on December 7, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 7,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=CNN&rft.atitle=Another+14th+Amendment+challenge+pops+up+in+Oregon&rft.date=2023-12-06&rft.aulast=Cohen&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2Fpolitics%2Flive-news%2Fcolorado-trump-14th-amendment-12-06-23%2Fh_7638191da48331ce65087e2c93db15e7&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-622"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-622">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFSources2023" class="citation web cs1">Sources, Central Oregon Daily News (December 29, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://centraloregondaily.com/donald-trump-oregon-primary-ballot-status/">"2 states have banned Trump from ballot. Where does Oregon stand?"</a>. <i>Central Oregon Daily</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231229173928/https://centraloregondaily.com/donald-trump-oregon-primary-ballot-status/">Archived</a> from the original on December 29, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 29,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Central+Oregon+Daily&rft.atitle=2+states+have+banned+Trump+from+ballot.+Where+does+Oregon+stand%3F&rft.date=2023-12-29&rft.aulast=Sources&rft.aufirst=Central+Oregon+Daily+News&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcentraloregondaily.com%2Fdonald-trump-oregon-primary-ballot-status%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-623"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-623">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFCohen2024" class="citation web cs1">Cohen, Marshall (January 12, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/12/politics/oregon-supreme-court-trump-ballot-2024/index.html">"Oregon Supreme Court won't remove Trump from ballot for now, says it's waiting on SCOTUS"</a>. <i>CNN</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 12,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=CNN&rft.atitle=Oregon+Supreme+Court+won%27t+remove+Trump+from+ballot+for+now%2C+says+it%27s+waiting+on+SCOTUS&rft.date=2024-01-12&rft.aulast=Cohen&rft.aufirst=Marshall&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2024%2F01%2F12%2Fpolitics%2Foregon-supreme-court-trump-ballot-2024%2Findex.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-624"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-624">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFWoolfolk2023" class="citation news cs1">Woolfolk, John (December 23, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.timesheraldonline.com/2023/12/23/can-california-really-keep-trump-off-the-ballot-2/">"Can California really keep Trump off the ballot?"</a>. <i>Time-Herald</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">March 1,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Time-Herald&rft.atitle=Can+California+really+keep+Trump+off+the+ballot%3F&rft.date=2023-12-23&rft.aulast=Woolfolk&rft.aufirst=John&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.timesheraldonline.com%2F2023%2F12%2F23%2Fcan-california-really-keep-trump-off-the-ballot-2%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-625"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-625">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMcFarland2023" class="citation news cs1">McFarland, Clair (December 20, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/12/19/wyoming-man-suing-to-keep-trump-off-ballot-ok-with-former-president-joining-lawsuit/">"Wyoming Man Suing To Keep Trump Off Ballot OK With Former President Joining Lawsuit"</a>. <i>Cowboy State Daily</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240105120935/https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/12/19/wyoming-man-suing-to-keep-trump-off-ballot-ok-with-former-president-joining-lawsuit/">Archived</a> from the original on January 5, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 5,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Cowboy+State+Daily&rft.atitle=Wyoming+Man+Suing+To+Keep+Trump+Off+Ballot+OK+With+Former+President+Joining+Lawsuit&rft.date=2023-12-20&rft.aulast=McFarland&rft.aufirst=Clair&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcowboystatedaily.com%2F2023%2F12%2F19%2Fwyoming-man-suing-to-keep-trump-off-ballot-ok-with-former-president-joining-lawsuit%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-626"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-626">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFBickerton2024" class="citation news cs1">Bickerton, James (January 5, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.newsweek.com/judge-shuts-down-attempt-kick-donald-trump-off-ballot-1858087">"Judge Shuts Down Attempt to Kick Donald Trump Off Ballot"</a>. <i>Newsweek</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240105230357/https://www.newsweek.com/judge-shuts-down-attempt-kick-donald-trump-off-ballot-1858087">Archived</a> from the original on January 5, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 6,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Newsweek&rft.atitle=Judge+Shuts+Down+Attempt+to+Kick+Donald+Trump+Off+Ballot&rft.date=2024-01-05&rft.aulast=Bickerton&rft.aufirst=James&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fjudge-shuts-down-attempt-kick-donald-trump-off-ballot-1858087&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-627"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-627">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMcFarland2024" class="citation news cs1">McFarland, Clair (January 19, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://cowboystatedaily.com/2024/01/18/laramie-attorney-appeals-to-wyoming-supreme-court-to-keep-trump-off-ballot/">"Laramie Attorney Appeals To Wyoming Supreme Court To Keep Trump Off Ballot"</a>. <i>Cowboy News Daily</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 26,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Cowboy+News+Daily&rft.atitle=Laramie+Attorney+Appeals+To+Wyoming+Supreme+Court+To+Keep+Trump+Off+Ballot&rft.date=2024-01-19&rft.aulast=McFarland&rft.aufirst=Clair&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcowboystatedaily.com%2F2024%2F01%2F18%2Flaramie-attorney-appeals-to-wyoming-supreme-court-to-keep-trump-off-ballot%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-628"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-628">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFDalyJoseph2023" class="citation news cs1">Daly, Ken; Joseph, Chris (December 27, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.fox8live.com/2023/12/27/chalmette-woman-files-suit-seeking-remove-trump-louisiana-ballot/">"Chalmette woman files suit seeking to remove Trump from Louisiana ballot"</a>. <i>Fox8</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240103235129/https://www.fox8live.com/2023/12/27/chalmette-woman-files-suit-seeking-remove-trump-louisiana-ballot/">Archived</a> from the original on January 3, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 5,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Fox8&rft.atitle=Chalmette+woman+files+suit+seeking+to+remove+Trump+from+Louisiana+ballot&rft.date=2023-12-27&rft.aulast=Daly&rft.aufirst=Ken&rft.au=Joseph%2C+Chris&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fox8live.com%2F2023%2F12%2F27%2Fchalmette-woman-files-suit-seeking-remove-trump-louisiana-ballot%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-629"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-629">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFWinger2024" class="citation news cs1">Winger, Richard (January 18, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://ballot-access.org/2024/01/18/louisiana-anti-trump-ballot-access-dropped/">"Louisiana Anti-Trump Ballot Access Lawsuit Dropped"</a>. <i>Ballot Access News</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 31,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Ballot+Access+News&rft.atitle=Louisiana+Anti-Trump+Ballot+Access+Lawsuit+Dropped&rft.date=2024-01-18&rft.aulast=Winger&rft.aufirst=Richard&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fballot-access.org%2F2024%2F01%2F18%2Flouisiana-anti-trump-ballot-access-dropped%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-630"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-630">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFGunn2023" class="citation news cs1">Gunn, Erik (December 28, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2023/12/28/brewery-owner-political-fundraiser-says-hell-sue-to-block-trump-from-wisconsins-2024-ballot/">"Brewery owner, political fundraiser says he'll sue to block Trump from Wisconsin's 2024 ballot"</a>. <i>Wisconsin Examiner</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231230104947/https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2023/12/28/brewery-owner-political-fundraiser-says-hell-sue-to-block-trump-from-wisconsins-2024-ballot/">Archived</a> from the original on December 30, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 30,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Wisconsin+Examiner&rft.atitle=Brewery+owner%2C+political+fundraiser+says+he%27ll+sue+to+block+Trump+from+Wisconsin%27s+2024+ballot&rft.date=2023-12-28&rft.aulast=Gunn&rft.aufirst=Erik&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwisconsinexaminer.com%2F2023%2F12%2F28%2Fbrewery-owner-political-fundraiser-says-hell-sue-to-block-trump-from-wisconsins-2024-ballot%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-631"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-631">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFCadiganThe_Associated_Press2024" class="citation news cs1">Cadigan, Benjamin; The Associated Press (January 5, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.weau.com/2024/01/05/lawsuit-filed-bar-trump-wisconsin-ballot/">"Lawsuit filed to bar Trump from Wisconsin ballot"</a>. <i>WEAU News</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240106004300/https://www.weau.com/2024/01/05/lawsuit-filed-bar-trump-wisconsin-ballot/">Archived</a> from the original on January 6, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 6,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=WEAU+News&rft.atitle=Lawsuit+filed+to+bar+Trump+from+Wisconsin+ballot&rft.date=2024-01-05&rft.aulast=Cadigan&rft.aufirst=Benjamin&rft.au=The+Associated+Press&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.weau.com%2F2024%2F01%2F05%2Flawsuit-filed-bar-trump-wisconsin-ballot%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-632"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-632">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMan2024" class="citation news cs1">Man, Anthony (January 3, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2024/01/03/south-florida-activist-asks-judge-to-keep-trump-off-states-election-ballot/">"South Florida activist asks judge to keep Trump off state's election ballot"</a>. <i>South Florida SunSentinel</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">February 2,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=South+Florida+SunSentinel&rft.atitle=South+Florida+activist+asks+judge+to+keep+Trump+off+state%E2%80%99s+election+ballot&rft.date=2024-01-03&rft.aulast=Man&rft.aufirst=Anthony&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sun-sentinel.com%2F2024%2F01%2F03%2Fsouth-florida-activist-asks-judge-to-keep-trump-off-states-election-ballot%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-633"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-633">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFChildress" class="citation news cs1">Childress, Kelsey. <a class="external text" href="https://wjla.com/news/local/virginia-activists-roy-perry-bey-carlos-howard-file-lawsuit-state-court-remove-former-president-donald-trump-election-ballot-2024">"Virginia activists file lawsuit in state court to remove former President Trump from election ballot"</a><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">February 18,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Virginia+activists+file+lawsuit+in+state+court+to+remove+former+President+Trump+from+election+ballot&rft.aulast=Childress&rft.aufirst=Kelsey&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwjla.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Fvirginia-activists-roy-perry-bey-carlos-howard-file-lawsuit-state-court-remove-former-president-donald-trump-election-ballot-2024&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-634"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-634">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFNoah_Corrin2024" class="citation news cs1">Noah Corrin (January 12, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.khq.com/news/lawsuit-to-remove-donald-trump-from-washington-presidential-primary-ballot-to-get-hearing/article_6dbc72de-b1ab-11ee-bb83-bb8599195d29.html">"Lawsuit to remove Donald Trump from Washington presidential primary ballot to get hearing"</a>. Spokane: <a href="/info/en/?search=KHQ-TV" title="KHQ-TV">KHQ-TV</a>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Lawsuit+to+remove+Donald+Trump+from+Washington+presidential+primary+ballot+to+get+hearing&rft.date=2024-01-12&rft.au=Noah+Corrin&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.khq.com%2Fnews%2Flawsuit-to-remove-donald-trump-from-washington-presidential-primary-ballot-to-get-hearing%2Farticle_6dbc72de-b1ab-11ee-bb83-bb8599195d29.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-635"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-635">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFAlex_Didion2024" class="citation news cs1">Alex Didion (January 16, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.king5.com/article/news/politics/donald-trump-washington-primary-ballot-kitsap-county-court/281-93ae6239-5e93-4d3e-9878-5ef2883afe82">"Donald Trump's spot on Washington primary ballot to be decided in Kitsap County court"</a>. Seattle: KING-TV. Associated Press. <q>The challenge contests the eligibility of Trump under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.</q></cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Donald+Trump%27s+spot+on+Washington+primary+ballot+to+be+decided+in+Kitsap+County+court&rft.date=2024-01-16&rft.au=Alex+Didion&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.king5.com%2Farticle%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fdonald-trump-washington-primary-ballot-kitsap-county-court%2F281-93ae6239-5e93-4d3e-9878-5ef2883afe82&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-636"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-636">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLotmore2024" class="citation news cs1">Lotmore, Mario (January 17, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://lynnwoodtimes.com/2024/01/16/trump-ballot-240116/">"Judge declines case to remove Trump from Washington state ballot"</a>. <i>Lynwood Times</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 17,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Lynwood+Times&rft.atitle=Judge+declines+case+to+remove+Trump+from+Washington+state+ballot&rft.date=2024-01-17&rft.aulast=Lotmore&rft.aufirst=Mario&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Flynnwoodtimes.com%2F2024%2F01%2F16%2Ftrump-ballot-240116%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-637"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-637">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFNazzaro2024" class="citation web cs1">Nazzaro, Miranda (January 18, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4416366-trump-washington-state-ballot-challenge/">"Trump will stay on ballot in Washington state"</a><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 18,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Trump+will+stay+on+ballot+in+Washington+state&rft.date=2024-01-18&rft.aulast=Nazzaro&rft.aufirst=Miranda&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fregulation%2Fcourt-battles%2F4416366-trump-washington-state-ballot-challenge%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-638"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-638">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFCornfield2024" class="citation news cs1">Cornfield, Jerry (January 18, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2024/01/18/judge-denies-request-to-remove-trump-from-wa-presidential-primary-ballot/">"Judge denies request to remove Trump from WA presidential primary ballot"</a><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 21,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Judge+denies+request+to+remove+Trump+from+WA+presidential+primary+ballot&rft.date=2024-01-18&rft.aulast=Cornfield&rft.aufirst=Jerry&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Foregoncapitalchronicle.com%2F2024%2F01%2F18%2Fjudge-denies-request-to-remove-trump-from-wa-presidential-primary-ballot%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-639"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-639">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFHillyard2023" class="citation news cs1">Hillyard, Vaughn (August 29, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/secretaries-state-get-ready-possible-challenges-trumps-ballot-access-rcna102440">"Secretaries of state get ready for possible challenges to Trump's ballot access"</a>. <i>NBC News</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231203210642/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/secretaries-state-get-ready-possible-challenges-trumps-ballot-access-rcna102440">Archived</a> from the original on December 3, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 20,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=NBC+News&rft.atitle=Secretaries+of+state+get+ready+for+possible+challenges+to+Trump%27s+ballot+access&rft.date=2023-08-29&rft.aulast=Hillyard&rft.aufirst=Vaughn&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fpolitics%2F2024-election%2Fsecretaries-state-get-ready-possible-challenges-trumps-ballot-access-rcna102440&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-640"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-640">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMurrayDemissie2023" class="citation news cs1">Murray, Isabella; Demissie, Hannah (September 1, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/state-election-officials-prepare-efforts-disqualify-trump-14th/story?id=102833123">"State election officials prepare for efforts to disqualify Trump under 14th Amendment"</a>. <i>ABC News</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231218081907/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/state-election-officials-prepare-efforts-disqualify-trump-14th/story?id=102833123">Archived</a> from the original on December 18, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 20,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=ABC+News&rft.atitle=State+election+officials+prepare+for+efforts+to+disqualify+Trump+under+14th+Amendment&rft.date=2023-09-01&rft.aulast=Murray&rft.aufirst=Isabella&rft.au=Demissie%2C+Hannah&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FPolitics%2Fstate-election-officials-prepare-efforts-disqualify-trump-14th%2Fstory%3Fid%3D102833123&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-641"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-641">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFHealyBettsBakerCowan2023" class="citation news cs1">Healy, Jack; Betts, Anna; Baker, Mike; Cowan, Jill (December 30, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/30/us/trump-maine-democracy.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-trump-colorado-ballot">"Would Keeping Trump Off the Ballot Hurt or Help Democracy?"</a>. <i>The New York Times</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240103234551/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/30/us/trump-maine-democracy.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-trump-colorado-ballot">Archived</a> from the original on January 3, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 4,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+New+York+Times&rft.atitle=Would+Keeping+Trump+Off+the+Ballot+Hurt+or+Help+Democracy%3F&rft.date=2023-12-30&rft.aulast=Healy&rft.aufirst=Jack&rft.au=Betts%2C+Anna&rft.au=Baker%2C+Mike&rft.au=Cowan%2C+Jill&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2023%2F12%2F30%2Fus%2Ftrump-maine-democracy.html%3Faction%3Dclick%26pgtype%3DArticle%26state%3Ddefault%26module%3Dstyln-trump-colorado-ballot&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-642"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-642">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFRamerRiccardi2023" class="citation news cs1">Ramer, Holly; Riccardi, Nicholas (September 13, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-new-hampshire-gop-ballot-block-consitution-insurrection-56f75ee5d650988d304308c5c912e9b2">"New Hampshire secretary of state won't block Trump from ballot in key presidential primary state"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Associated_Press" title="Associated Press">Associated Press</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231118013731/https://apnews.com/article/trump-new-hampshire-gop-ballot-block-consitution-insurrection-56f75ee5d650988d304308c5c912e9b2">Archived</a> from the original on November 18, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">November 18,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Associated+Press&rft.atitle=New+Hampshire+secretary+of+state+won%27t+block+Trump+from+ballot+in+key+presidential+primary+state&rft.date=2023-09-13&rft.aulast=Ramer&rft.aufirst=Holly&rft.au=Riccardi%2C+Nicholas&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fapnews.com%2Farticle%2Ftrump-new-hampshire-gop-ballot-block-consitution-insurrection-56f75ee5d650988d304308c5c912e9b2&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-643"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-643">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMasonGardiner2023" class="citation news cs1">Mason, Melanie; Gardiner, Dustin (December 29, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/29/california-trump-ballot-fight-00133340">"<span class="cs1-kern-left"></span>'State of resistance' no more: California on sidelines of Trump ballot fight"</a>. <i>Politico</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231230210610/https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/29/california-trump-ballot-fight-00133340">Archived</a> from the original on December 30, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 31,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Politico&rft.atitle=%27State+of+resistance%27+no+more%3A+California+on+sidelines+of+Trump+ballot+fight&rft.date=2023-12-29&rft.aulast=Mason&rft.aufirst=Melanie&rft.au=Gardiner%2C+Dustin&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fnews%2F2023%2F12%2F29%2Fcalifornia-trump-ballot-fight-00133340&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-me_hearing_pr-644"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-me_hearing_pr_644-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-me_hearing_pr_644-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.maine.gov/sos/news/2023/HearingScheduledChallengesTrumpPrimaryNominationPetition.html">"Hearing scheduled for challenges to Trump primary nomination petition"</a>. <i>Maine Department of the Secretary of State</i>. December 11, 2023. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231222175236/https://www.maine.gov/sos/news/2023/HearingScheduledChallengesTrumpPrimaryNominationPetition.html">Archived</a> from the original on December 22, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 2,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Maine+Department+of+the+Secretary+of+State&rft.atitle=Hearing+scheduled+for+challenges+to+Trump+primary+nomination+petition&rft.date=2023-12-11&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.maine.gov%2Fsos%2Fnews%2F2023%2FHearingScheduledChallengesTrumpPrimaryNominationPetition.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-645"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-645">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFBartow2023" class="citation news cs1">Bartow, Adam (December 11, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.wmtw.com/article/multiple-petitions-seek-remove-donald-trump-maine-presidential-primary-ballot/46093547">"Multiple petitions seek to remove Donald Trump from Maine primary ballot"</a>. <i>WMTV</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231218054100/https://www.wmtw.com/article/multiple-petitions-seek-remove-donald-trump-maine-presidential-primary-ballot/46093547">Archived</a> from the original on December 18, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 20,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=WMTV&rft.atitle=Multiple+petitions+seek+to+remove+Donald+Trump+from+Maine+primary+ballot&rft.date=2023-12-11&rft.aulast=Bartow&rft.aufirst=Adam&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wmtw.com%2Farticle%2Fmultiple-petitions-seek-remove-donald-trump-maine-presidential-primary-ballot%2F46093547&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-646"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-646">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMontellaro2023" class="citation news cs1">Montellaro, Zach (December 15, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/15/maine-14th-amendment-trump-00132136">"Maine's elections chief publicly grapples with whether 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump"</a>. <i>Politico</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231216000233/https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/15/maine-14th-amendment-trump-00132136">Archived</a> from the original on December 16, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 16,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Politico&rft.atitle=Maine%27s+elections+chief+publicly+grapples+with+whether+14th+Amendment+disqualifies+Trump&rft.date=2023-12-15&rft.aulast=Montellaro&rft.aufirst=Zach&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fnews%2F2023%2F12%2F15%2Fmaine-14th-amendment-trump-00132136&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-647"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-647">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFDavis2023" class="citation news cs1">Davis, Emma (December 11, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/mainers-challenge-donald-trumps-election-eligibility">"Mainers challenge Donald Trump's election eligibility"</a>. <i>News From The States</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231215225347/https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/mainers-challenge-donald-trumps-election-eligibility">Archived</a> from the original on December 15, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 16,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=News+From+The+States&rft.atitle=Mainers+challenge+Donald+Trump%27s+election+eligibility&rft.date=2023-12-11&rft.aulast=Davis&rft.aufirst=Emma&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsfromthestates.com%2Farticle%2Fmainers-challenge-donald-trumps-election-eligibility&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-648"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-648">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFDavis2023" class="citation news cs1">Davis, Emma (December 15, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://mainemorningstar.com/2023/12/15/sec-of-state-bellows-hears-arguments-in-hearing-on-challenges-to-trumps-ballot-eligibility/">"Sec. of State Bellows hears arguments for and against challenges to Trump's ballot eligibility"</a>. <i>Maine Morning Star</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231216034809/https://mainemorningstar.com/2023/12/15/sec-of-state-bellows-hears-arguments-in-hearing-on-challenges-to-trumps-ballot-eligibility/">Archived</a> from the original on December 16, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 16,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Maine+Morning+Star&rft.atitle=Sec.+of+State+Bellows+hears+arguments+for+and+against+challenges+to+Trump%27s+ballot+eligibility&rft.date=2023-12-15&rft.aulast=Davis&rft.aufirst=Emma&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fmainemorningstar.com%2F2023%2F12%2F15%2Fsec-of-state-bellows-hears-arguments-in-hearing-on-challenges-to-trumps-ballot-eligibility%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-649"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-649">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFRussell2023" class="citation news cs1">Russell, Jenna (December 22, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/us/maine-trump-ballot.html">"Maine's Secretary of State to Decide Whether Trump Can Stay on Ballot"</a>. <i>The New York Times</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231225191819/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/us/maine-trump-ballot.html">Archived</a> from the original on December 25, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 26,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+New+York+Times&rft.atitle=Maine%27s+Secretary+of+State+to+Decide+Whether+Trump+Can+Stay+on+Ballot&rft.date=2023-12-22&rft.aulast=Russell&rft.aufirst=Jenna&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2023%2F12%2F22%2Fus%2Fmaine-trump-ballot.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-650"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-650">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvBkgW893g8">"Hearing Regarding Challenges to Trump Primary Nomination Petition"</a>. <i>Youtube</i>. Maine Department of the Secretary of State. December 15, 2023. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240101222130/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvBkgW893g8">Archived</a> from the original on January 1, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 2,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Youtube&rft.atitle=Hearing+Regarding+Challenges+to+Trump+Primary+Nomination+Petition&rft.date=2023-12-15&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DJvBkgW893g8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-me_decision_pr-651"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-me_decision_pr_651-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-me_decision_pr_651-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-me_decision_pr_651-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.maine.gov/sos/news/2023/BellowsDecisionChallengeTrumpPrimaryPetitionsDec2023.html">"Maine Secretary of State Decision in Challenge to Trump Presidential Primary Petitions"</a>. <i>maine.gov</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231229010745/https://www.maine.gov/sos/news/2023/BellowsDecisionChallengeTrumpPrimaryPetitionsDec2023.html">Archived</a> from the original on December 29, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 29,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=maine.gov&rft.atitle=Maine+Secretary+of+State+Decision+in+Challenge+to+Trump+Presidential+Primary+Petitions&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.maine.gov%2Fsos%2Fnews%2F2023%2FBellowsDecisionChallengeTrumpPrimaryPetitionsDec2023.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-652"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-652">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMatza2023" class="citation news cs1">Matza, Max (December 28, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67837639">"Trump blocked from Maine presidential ballot in 2024"</a>. <i>BBC News</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231229000951/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67837639">Archived</a> from the original on December 29, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 29,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=BBC+News&rft.atitle=Trump+blocked+from+Maine+presidential+ballot+in+2024&rft.date=2023-12-28&rft.aulast=Matza&rft.aufirst=Max&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fworld-us-canada-67837639&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-653"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-653">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFSeitz-Wald2023" class="citation web cs1">Seitz-Wald, Alex (December 29, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/maines-top-election-official-rules-trump-ineligible-2024-primary-ballo-rcna131375">"Maine's top election official rules Trump ineligible for 2024 primary ballot"</a>. <i>NBC News</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231229002413/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/maines-top-election-official-rules-trump-ineligible-2024-primary-ballo-rcna131375">Archived</a> from the original on December 29, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 29,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=NBC+News&rft.atitle=Maine%27s+top+election+official+rules+Trump+ineligible+for+2024+primary+ballot&rft.date=2023-12-29&rft.aulast=Seitz-Wald&rft.aufirst=Alex&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fpolitics%2F2024-election%2Fmaines-top-election-official-rules-trump-ineligible-2024-primary-ballo-rcna131375&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-654"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-654">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMontellaro2023" class="citation news cs1">Montellaro, Zach (December 28, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/28/maine-kicks-trump-off-ballot-under-14th-amendment-00133294">"Maine strips Trump from the ballot, inflaming legal war over his candidacy"</a>. <i>Politico</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231229014234/https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/28/maine-kicks-trump-off-ballot-under-14th-amendment-00133294">Archived</a> from the original on December 29, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 29,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Politico&rft.atitle=Maine+strips+Trump+from+the+ballot%2C+inflaming+legal+war+over+his+candidacy&rft.date=2023-12-28&rft.aulast=Montellaro&rft.aufirst=Zach&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fnews%2F2023%2F12%2F28%2Fmaine-kicks-trump-off-ballot-under-14th-amendment-00133294&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-655"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-655">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFFreiman2023" class="citation news cs1">Freiman, Jordan (December 28, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-maine-primary-ballot-disqualified-secretary-of-state-shenna-bellows/">"Maine secretary of state disqualifies Trump from primary ballot"</a>. <i>CBS News</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231229014916/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-maine-primary-ballot-disqualified-secretary-of-state-shenna-bellows/">Archived</a> from the original on December 29, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 29,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=CBS+News&rft.atitle=Maine+secretary+of+state+disqualifies+Trump+from+primary+ballot&rft.date=2023-12-28&rft.aulast=Freiman&rft.aufirst=Jordan&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fnews%2Ftrump-maine-primary-ballot-disqualified-secretary-of-state-shenna-bellows%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-656"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-656">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFOhm2024" class="citation web cs1">Ohm, Rachel (January 2, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.pressherald.com/2024/01/02/appeal-filed-in-response-to-maine-secretary-of-states-decision-to-bar-trump-from-primary-ballot/">"Trump appeals Maine secretary of state's decision to bar him from primary ballot"</a>. <i>Portland Press Herald</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240102232548/https://www.pressherald.com/2024/01/02/appeal-filed-in-response-to-maine-secretary-of-states-decision-to-bar-trump-from-primary-ballot/">Archived</a> from the original on January 2, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 3,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Portland+Press+Herald&rft.atitle=Trump+appeals+Maine+secretary+of+state%27s+decision+to+bar+him+from+primary+ballot&rft.date=2024-01-02&rft.aulast=Ohm&rft.aufirst=Rachel&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pressherald.com%2F2024%2F01%2F02%2Fappeal-filed-in-response-to-maine-secretary-of-states-decision-to-bar-trump-from-primary-ballot%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-657"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-657">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMarley2024" class="citation news cs1">Marley, Patrick (February 2, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/02/trump-maine-ballot-appeal-14th-amendment/">"Trump appeals Maine's decision to ban him from the primary ballot"</a>. <i>The Washington Post</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 3,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Washington+Post&rft.atitle=Trump+appeals+Maine%27s+decision+to+ban+him+from+the+primary+ballot&rft.date=2024-02-02&rft.aulast=Marley&rft.aufirst=Patrick&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fpolitics%2F2024%2F01%2F02%2Ftrump-maine-ballot-appeal-14th-amendment%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-658"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-658">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFSchonfeld2024" class="citation news cs1">Schonfeld, Zach (January 17, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4414169-maine-judge-trump-14th-amendment-primary-ballot-supreme-court/">"Maine judge defers decision on Trump 14th Amendment question until Supreme Court rules"</a>. <i>The Hill</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 17,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Hill&rft.atitle=Maine+judge+defers+decision+on+Trump+14th+Amendment+question+until+Supreme+Court+rules&rft.date=2024-01-17&rft.aulast=Schonfeld&rft.aufirst=Zach&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fregulation%2Fcourt-battles%2F4414169-maine-judge-trump-14th-amendment-primary-ballot-supreme-court%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-659"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-659">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMurphy2024" class="citation news cs1">Murphy, Michaela (January 17, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.courts.maine.gov/news/trump/order-and-decision.pdf">"Order and Decision (M.R. Civ. P. 80C)"</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span>. <i>courts.maine.gov</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 17,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=courts.maine.gov&rft.atitle=Order+and+Decision+%28M.R.+Civ.+P.+80C%29&rft.date=2024-01-17&rft.aulast=Murphy&rft.aufirst=Michaela&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.courts.maine.gov%2Fnews%2Ftrump%2Forder-and-decision.pdf&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-660"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-660">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFQuinn2024" class="citation web cs1">Quinn, Melissa (January 19, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maine-trump-ballot-eligibility-state-supreme-court-to-review/">"Maine's top election official asks state supreme court to review Trump ballot eligibility decision"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=CBS_News" title="CBS News">CBS News</a></i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240121232110/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maine-trump-ballot-eligibility-state-supreme-court-to-review/">Archived</a> from the original on January 21, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 22,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=CBS+News&rft.atitle=Maine%27s+top+election+official+asks+state+supreme+court+to+review+Trump+ballot+eligibility+decision&rft.date=2024-01-19&rft.aulast=Quinn&rft.aufirst=Melissa&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fnews%2Fmaine-trump-ballot-eligibility-state-supreme-court-to-review%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-661"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-661">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFSharp2024" class="citation web cs1">Sharp, David (January 24, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-ballot-insurrection-amendment-2240b954d91c442b5644c74b2823f2c0">"Maine's top court dismisses appeal of judge's decision on Trump ballot status"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Associated_Press" title="Associated Press">Associated Press</a></i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 24,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Associated+Press&rft.atitle=Maine%E2%80%99s+top+court+dismisses+appeal+of+judge%E2%80%99s+decision+on+Trump+ballot+status&rft.date=2024-01-24&rft.aulast=Sharp&rft.aufirst=David&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fapnews.com%2Farticle%2Fmaine-trump-ballot-insurrection-amendment-2240b954d91c442b5644c74b2823f2c0&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-662"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-662">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation news cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.wbur.org/news/2023/12/21/galvin-trump-mass-primary-ballot-colorado-courts">"Galvin: Trump on track to be on the Mass. primary ballot, barring court orders"</a>. <a href="/info/en/?search=WBUR-FM" title="WBUR-FM">WBUR</a>. December 21, 2023. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240104234628/https://www.wbur.org/news/2023/12/21/galvin-trump-mass-primary-ballot-colorado-courts">Archived</a> from the original on January 4, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 4,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Galvin%3A+Trump+on+track+to+be+on+the+Mass.+primary+ballot%2C+barring+court+orders&rft.date=2023-12-21&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wbur.org%2Fnews%2F2023%2F12%2F21%2Fgalvin-trump-mass-primary-ballot-colorado-courts&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-663"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-663">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFDoran2024" class="citation news cs1">Doran, Sam (January 2, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/01/02/trump-name-massachusetts-primary-ballot">"Galvin says Trump will appear on Mass. primary ballot"</a>. WBUR. <a href="/info/en/?search=State_House_News_Service" title="State House News Service">State House News Service</a>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240103001608/https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/01/02/trump-name-massachusetts-primary-ballot">Archived</a> from the original on January 3, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 4,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Galvin+says+Trump+will+appear+on+Mass.+primary+ballot&rft.date=2024-01-02&rft.aulast=Doran&rft.aufirst=Sam&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wbur.org%2Fnews%2F2024%2F01%2F02%2Ftrump-name-massachusetts-primary-ballot&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-664"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-664">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation news cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://whdh.com/news/group-of-massachusetts-voters-file-to-remove-former-president-trump-from-ballot/">"Group of Massachusetts voters file to remove Former President Trump from ballot"</a>. <a href="/info/en/?search=WHDH_(TV)" title="WHDH (TV)">WHDH</a>. State House News Service. January 4, 2024. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240104231306/https://whdh.com/news/group-of-massachusetts-voters-file-to-remove-former-president-trump-from-ballot/">Archived</a> from the original on January 4, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 4,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Group+of+Massachusetts+voters+file+to+remove+Former+President+Trump+from+ballot&rft.date=2024-01-04&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwhdh.com%2Fnews%2Fgroup-of-massachusetts-voters-file-to-remove-former-president-trump-from-ballot%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-665"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-665">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFKwangwariKlein2024" class="citation news cs1">Kwangwari, Munashe; Klein, Asher (January 18, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/commission-to-consider-objections-to-trump-being-on-mass-ballot/3250659/">"Commission considers objections to Trump being on Mass. primary ballot"</a>. <a href="/info/en/?search=WBTS-CD" title="WBTS-CD">WBTS</a><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 20,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Commission+considers+objections+to+Trump+being+on+Mass.+primary+ballot&rft.date=2024-01-18&rft.aulast=Kwangwari&rft.aufirst=Munashe&rft.au=Klein%2C+Asher&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcboston.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Fcommission-to-consider-objections-to-trump-being-on-mass-ballot%2F3250659%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-666"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-666">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFGanley2024" class="citation news cs1">Ganley, Shaun (January 22, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.wcvb.com/article/massachusetts-donald-trump-presidential-primary-ballot-decision/46494516">"Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission rejects attempt to remove Trump from primary ballot"</a>. <a href="/info/en/?search=WCVB-TV" title="WCVB-TV">WCVB</a><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 22,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Massachusetts+Ballot+Law+Commission+rejects+attempt+to+remove+Trump+from+primary+ballot&rft.date=2024-01-22&rft.aulast=Ganley&rft.aufirst=Shaun&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wcvb.com%2Farticle%2Fmassachusetts-donald-trump-presidential-primary-ballot-decision%2F46494516&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-667"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-667">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLavery2024" class="citation news cs1">Lavery, Tréa (January 22, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.masslive.com/politics/2024/01/donald-trump-will-appear-on-the-ballot-in-mass-presidential-primary.html">"Donald Trump will appear on the ballot in Mass. Republican presidential primary"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=The_Republican_(Springfield,_Massachusetts)" title="The Republican (Springfield, Massachusetts)">Springfield Republican</a></i>. <a href="/info/en/?search=Advance_Publications" title="Advance Publications">Advance Publications</a><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 22,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Springfield+Republican&rft.atitle=Donald+Trump+will+appear+on+the+ballot+in+Mass.+Republican+presidential+primary&rft.date=2024-01-22&rft.aulast=Lavery&rft.aufirst=Tr%C3%A9a&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.masslive.com%2Fpolitics%2F2024%2F01%2Fdonald-trump-will-appear-on-the-ballot-in-mass-presidential-primary.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-668"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-668">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFDeGray2024" class="citation news cs1">DeGray, Nick (January 24, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.wwlp.com/news/state-politics/appeal-filed-with-supreme-judicial-court-to-remove-trump-from-massachusetts-ballot/">"Appeal filed with Supreme Judicial Court to remove Trump from Massachusetts ballot"</a>. <a href="/info/en/?search=WWLP" title="WWLP">WWLP</a><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 27,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Appeal+filed+with+Supreme+Judicial+Court+to+remove+Trump+from+Massachusetts+ballot&rft.date=2024-01-24&rft.aulast=DeGray&rft.aufirst=Nick&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wwlp.com%2Fnews%2Fstate-politics%2Fappeal-filed-with-supreme-judicial-court-to-remove-trump-from-massachusetts-ballot%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-669"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-669">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLisinski2024" class="citation news cs1">Lisinski, Chris (January 29, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/massachusetts-judge-keeps-former-president-donald-trump-ballot-2024-election/MUGHWJB6UVHDXNULMSXB6RW6IQ/">"Massachusetts Judge keeps former President Donald Trump on the ballot for 2024 election"</a>. <a href="/info/en/?search=WFXT" title="WFXT">WFXT</a>. State House News Service<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 31,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Massachusetts+Judge+keeps+former+President+Donald+Trump+on+the+ballot+for+2024+election&rft.date=2024-01-29&rft.aulast=Lisinski&rft.aufirst=Chris&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boston25news.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Fmassachusetts-judge-keeps-former-president-donald-trump-ballot-2024-election%2FMUGHWJB6UVHDXNULMSXB6RW6IQ%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-670"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-670">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFWinger" class="citation news cs1">Winger, Richard. <a class="external text" href="https://ballot-access.org/2024/01/30/justice-frank-gaziano-of-the-massachusetts-supreme-court-leaves-trump-on-ballot-but-objectors-then-ask-full-court-to-hear-their-appeal/">"Justice Frank Gaziano of the Massachusetts Supreme Court Leaves Trump on Ballot, but Objectors Then Ask Full Court to Hear Their Appeal"</a>. <i>Ballot Access News</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 31,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Ballot+Access+News&rft.atitle=Justice+Frank+Gaziano+of+the+Massachusetts+Supreme+Court+Leaves+Trump+on+Ballot%2C+but+Objectors+Then+Ask+Full+Court+to+Hear+Their+Appeal&rft.aulast=Winger&rft.aufirst=Richard&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fballot-access.org%2F2024%2F01%2F30%2Fjustice-frank-gaziano-of-the-massachusetts-supreme-court-leaves-trump-on-ballot-but-objectors-then-ask-full-court-to-hear-their-appeal%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-671"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-671">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFWillis2024" class="citation news cs1">Willis, Amy Passaretti (January 3, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://portcitydaily.com/latest-news/2024/01/03/nc-voter-appeals-state-boes-denial-of-trumps-candidacy-to-superior-court/">"NC voter appeals state BOE's denial of Trump's candidacy to superior court"</a>. <i>Port City Daily</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240105020611/https://portcitydaily.com/latest-news/2024/01/03/nc-voter-appeals-state-boes-denial-of-trumps-candidacy-to-superior-court/">Archived</a> from the original on January 5, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 5,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Port+City+Daily&rft.atitle=NC+voter+appeals+state+BOE%27s+denial+of+Trump%27s+candidacy+to+superior+court&rft.date=2024-01-03&rft.aulast=Willis&rft.aufirst=Amy+Passaretti&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fportcitydaily.com%2Flatest-news%2F2024%2F01%2F03%2Fnc-voter-appeals-state-boes-denial-of-trumps-candidacy-to-superior-court%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-672"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-672">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFCarlony" class="citation news cs1">Carlony, Brittany. <a class="external text" href="https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/02/16/jan-6-subject-of-trump-primary-ballot-challenge-in-indiana/72631205007/">"Donald Trump faces a challenge aiming to keep him off Indiana ballot. Here's why"</a>. <i>IndyStar</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">February 17,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=IndyStar&rft.atitle=Donald+Trump+faces+a+challenge+aiming+to+keep+him+off+Indiana+ballot.+Here%27s+why&rft.aulast=Carlony&rft.aufirst=Brittany&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indystar.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Felections%2F2024%2F02%2F16%2Fjan-6-subject-of-trump-primary-ballot-challenge-in-indiana%2F72631205007%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-673"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-673">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFSmith2024" class="citation news cs1">Smith, Brandon (February 27, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.wbaa.org/local-news/2024-02-27/donald-trump-remains-on-indiana-ballot-after-state-election-board-dismisses-challenge">"Donald Trump remains on Indiana ballot after state election board dismisses challenge"</a>. <i>WBAA</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">February 29,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=WBAA&rft.atitle=Donald+Trump+remains+on+Indiana+ballot+after+state+election+board+dismisses+challenge&rft.date=2024-02-27&rft.aulast=Smith&rft.aufirst=Brandon&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wbaa.org%2Flocal-news%2F2024-02-27%2Fdonald-trump-remains-on-indiana-ballot-after-state-election-board-dismisses-challenge&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Yahoo!_News_9-30-2022-674"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Yahoo!_News_9-30-2022_674-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Yahoo!_News_9-30-2022_674-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFRomano2022" class="citation news cs1">Romano, Andrew (September 30, 2022). <a class="external text" href="https://news.yahoo.com/poll-most-us-voters-now-say-trump-should-not-be-allowed-to-serve-as-president-again-100014416.html">"Poll: Most U.S. voters now say Trump should not be allowed to serve as president again"</a>. <i>Yahoo! News</i>. Yahoo! Inc<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 24,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Yahoo%21+News&rft.atitle=Poll%3A+Most+U.S.+voters+now+say+Trump+should+not+be+allowed+to+serve+as+president+again&rft.date=2022-09-30&rft.aulast=Romano&rft.aufirst=Andrew&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fpoll-most-us-voters-now-say-trump-should-not-be-allowed-to-serve-as-president-again-100014416.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Quinnipiac_3-29-2023-678"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac_3-29-2023_678-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac_3-29-2023_678-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation pressrelease cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3870">"Mixed Signals On Trump: Majority Says Criminal Charges Should Disqualify '24 Run, Popularity Is Unchanged, Leads DeSantis By Double Digits, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds"</a> (Press release). Quinnipiac University. March 29, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 24,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Mixed+Signals+On+Trump%3A+Majority+Says+Criminal+Charges+Should+Disqualify+%2724+Run%2C+Popularity+Is+Unchanged%2C+Leads+DeSantis+By+Double+Digits%2C+Quinnipiac+University+National+Poll+Finds&rft.pub=Quinnipiac+University&rft.date=2023-03-29&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fpoll.qu.edu%2Fpoll-release%3Freleaseid%3D3870&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Reuters_8-3-2023-680"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Reuters_8-3-2023_680-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Reuters_8-3-2023_680-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Reuters_8-3-2023_680-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Reuters_8-3-2023_680-3"><sup><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLange2023" class="citation news cs1">Lange, Jason (August 3, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/about-half-us-republicans-could-spurn-trump-if-he-is-convicted-reutersipsos-poll-2023-08-03/">"About half of US Republicans could spurn Trump if he is convicted, Reuters/Ipsos poll shows"</a>. <i>Reuters</i>. Thomson Reuters<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 24,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Reuters&rft.atitle=About+half+of+US+Republicans+could+spurn+Trump+if+he+is+convicted%2C+Reuters%2FIpsos+poll+shows&rft.date=2023-08-03&rft.aulast=Lange&rft.aufirst=Jason&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Flegal%2Fabout-half-us-republicans-could-spurn-trump-if-he-is-convicted-reutersipsos-poll-2023-08-03%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Ipsos_8-3-2023-681"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Ipsos_8-3-2023_681-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Ipsos_8-3-2023_681-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Ipsos_8-3-2023_681-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Ipsos_8-3-2023_681-3"><sup><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLohrJacksonFeldman2023" class="citation pressrelease cs1">Lohr, Annaleise Azevedo; Jackson, Chris; Feldman, Sarah (August 3, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reutersipsos-survey-despite-indictments-trump-leads-primary-field-desantis-loses-support">"Reuters/Ipsos Survey: Despite indictments, Trump leads primary field as DeSantis loses support"</a> (Press release). Ipsos<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 24,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Reuters%2FIpsos+Survey%3A+Despite+indictments%2C+Trump+leads+primary+field+as+DeSantis+loses+support&rft.pub=Ipsos&rft.date=2023-08-03&rft.aulast=Lohr&rft.aufirst=Annaleise+Azevedo&rft.au=Jackson%2C+Chris&rft.au=Feldman%2C+Sarah&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipsos.com%2Fen-us%2Freutersipsos-survey-despite-indictments-trump-leads-primary-field-desantis-loses-support&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-CNN_9-5-2023-683"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-CNN_9-5-2023_683-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-CNN_9-5-2023_683-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFAgiestaEdwards-Levy2023" class="citation news cs1">Agiesta, Jennifer; Edwards-Levy, Ariel (September 5, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/05/politics/cnn-poll-trump-primary-criminal-charges/index.html">"CNN Poll: GOP voters' broad support for Trump holds, with less than half seriously worried criminal charges will harm his 2024 chances"</a>. CNN<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 24,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=CNN+Poll%3A+GOP+voters%27+broad+support+for+Trump+holds%2C+with+less+than+half+seriously+worried+criminal+charges+will+harm+his+2024+chances&rft.date=2023-09-05&rft.aulast=Agiesta&rft.aufirst=Jennifer&rft.au=Edwards-Levy%2C+Ariel&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2023%2F09%2F05%2Fpolitics%2Fcnn-poll-trump-primary-criminal-charges%2Findex.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Washington_Post_9-29-2023-685"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Washington_Post_9-29-2023_685-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Washington_Post_9-29-2023_685-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFBalzClementGuskin2023" class="citation news cs1">Balz, Dan; Clement, Scott; Guskin, Emily (September 29, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/24/biden-trump-poll-2024-election/">"Post-ABC poll: Biden faces criticism on economy, immigration and age"</a>. <i>The Washington Post</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 25,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Washington+Post&rft.atitle=Post-ABC+poll%3A+Biden+faces+criticism+on+economy%2C+immigration+and+age&rft.date=2023-09-29&rft.aulast=Balz&rft.aufirst=Dan&rft.au=Clement%2C+Scott&rft.au=Guskin%2C+Emily&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fpolitics%2F2023%2F09%2F24%2Fbiden-trump-poll-2024-election%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Politico_9-29-2023-687"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Politico_9-29-2023_687-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Politico_9-29-2023_687-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMontellaro2023" class="citation news cs1">Montellaro, Zach (September 29, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/29/poll-trump-disqualified-14th-amendment-00118980">"Poll: Majority of voters would support disqualifying Trump under 14th Amendment"</a>. <i>Politico</i>. Axel Springer SE<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 24,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Politico&rft.atitle=Poll%3A+Majority+of+voters+would+support+disqualifying+Trump+under+14th+Amendment&rft.date=2023-09-29&rft.aulast=Montellaro&rft.aufirst=Zach&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fnews%2F2023%2F09%2F29%2Fpoll-trump-disqualified-14th-amendment-00118980&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-ABC_News_1-12-2024-691"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-ABC_News_1-12-2024_691-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLanger2024" class="citation news cs1">Langer, Gary (January 12, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/americans-divided-scotus-handle-trump-ballot-access-poll/story?id=106300304">"Americans divided on how SCOTUS should handle Trump ballot access: POLL"</a>. ABC News<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 24,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Americans+divided+on+how+SCOTUS+should+handle+Trump+ballot+access%3A+POLL&rft.date=2024-01-12&rft.aulast=Langer&rft.aufirst=Gary&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FUS%2Famericans-divided-scotus-handle-trump-ballot-access-poll%2Fstory%3Fid%3D106300304&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Ipsos_1-12-2024-692"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-Ipsos_1-12-2024_692-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFJacksonNewallSawyerRollason2024" class="citation pressrelease cs1">Jackson, Chris; Newall, Mallory; Sawyer, Johnny; Rollason, Charlie (January 12, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reutersipsos-survey-trump-remains-favored-2024-presidential-nomination-despite-criminal-charges">"American public split on Trump removal from Colorado, Maine ballots"</a> (Press release). Ipsos<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 25,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=American+public+split+on+Trump+removal+from+Colorado%2C+Maine+ballots&rft.pub=Ipsos&rft.date=2024-01-12&rft.aulast=Jackson&rft.aufirst=Chris&rft.au=Newall%2C+Mallory&rft.au=Sawyer%2C+Johnny&rft.au=Rollason%2C+Charlie&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipsos.com%2Fen-us%2Freutersipsos-survey-trump-remains-favored-2024-presidential-nomination-despite-criminal-charges&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024-694"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024_694-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024_694-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024_694-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024_694-3"><sup><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024_694-4"><sup><i><b>e</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024_694-5"><sup><i><b>f</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024_694-6"><sup><i><b>g</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024_694-7"><sup><i><b>h</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024_694-8"><sup><i><b>i</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024_694-9"><sup><i><b>j</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024_694-10"><sup><i><b>k</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Yahoo_News_2-1-2024_694-11"><sup><i><b>l</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFRomano2024" class="citation news cs1">Romano, Andrew (February 1, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://news.yahoo.com/yahoo-newsyougov-poll-most-voters-say-convicting-trump-of-a-serious-crime-would-be-a-fair-outcome-100022394.html">"Yahoo News/YouGov poll: 51% of voters say convicting Trump of a 'serious crime' would be a 'fair outcome'<span class="cs1-kern-right"></span>"</a>. <i>Yahoo! News</i>. Yahoo! Inc<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">February 2,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Yahoo%21+News&rft.atitle=Yahoo+News%2FYouGov+poll%3A+51%25+of+voters+say+convicting+Trump+of+a+%27serious+crime%27+would+be+a+%27fair+outcome%27&rft.date=2024-02-01&rft.aulast=Romano&rft.aufirst=Andrew&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fyahoo-newsyougov-poll-most-voters-say-convicting-trump-of-a-serious-crime-would-be-a-fair-outcome-100022394.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Ipsos_3-24-2023-696"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Ipsos_3-24-2023_696-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Ipsos_3-24-2023_696-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLohrJackson2023" class="citation pressrelease cs1">Lohr, Annaleise Azevedo; Jackson, Chris (March 24, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reutersipsos-issues-survey-march-2023">"Reuters/Ipsos Issues Survey March 2023"</a> (Press release). Ipsos<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 25,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Reuters%2FIpsos+Issues+Survey+March+2023&rft.pub=Ipsos&rft.date=2023-03-24&rft.aulast=Lohr&rft.aufirst=Annaleise+Azevedo&rft.au=Jackson%2C+Chris&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipsos.com%2Fen-us%2Freutersipsos-issues-survey-march-2023&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Reuters_4-6-2023-698"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Reuters_4-6-2023_698-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Reuters_4-6-2023_698-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFCowan2023" class="citation news cs1">Cowan, Richard (April 6, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/americans-divided-over-criminal-charges-against-trump-reutersipsos-poll-2023-04-06/">"Americans divided over criminal charges against Trump - Reuters/Ipsos poll"</a>. <i>Reuters</i>. Thomson Reuters<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 24,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Reuters&rft.atitle=Americans+divided+over+criminal+charges+against+Trump+-+Reuters%2FIpsos+poll&rft.date=2023-04-06&rft.aulast=Cowan&rft.aufirst=Richard&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Fworld%2Fus%2Famericans-divided-over-criminal-charges-against-trump-reutersipsos-poll-2023-04-06%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Ipsos_4-7-2023-699"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Ipsos_4-7-2023_699-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Ipsos_4-7-2023_699-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLohrJackson2023" class="citation pressrelease cs1">Lohr, Annaleise Azevedo; Jackson, Chris (April 7, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reutersipsos-survey-trump-remains-favored-2024-presidential-nomination-despite-criminal-charges">"Reuters/Ipsos Survey: Trump remains favored in 2024 presidential nomination despite criminal charges"</a> (Press release). Ipsos<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 24,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Reuters%2FIpsos+Survey%3A+Trump+remains+favored+in+2024+presidential+nomination+despite+criminal+charges&rft.pub=Ipsos&rft.date=2023-04-07&rft.aulast=Lohr&rft.aufirst=Annaleise+Azevedo&rft.au=Jackson%2C+Chris&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipsos.com%2Fen-us%2Freutersipsos-survey-trump-remains-favored-2024-presidential-nomination-despite-criminal-charges&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-NPR_4-25-2023-701"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-NPR_4-25-2023_701-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-NPR_4-25-2023_701-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMontanaro2023" class="citation news cs1">Montanaro, Domenico (April 25, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.npr.org/2023/04/25/1171660997/poll-republicans-trump-president-convicted-crime">"Most Republicans would vote for Trump even if he's convicted of a crime, poll finds"</a>. NPR<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 25,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Most+Republicans+would+vote+for+Trump+even+if+he%27s+convicted+of+a+crime%2C+poll+finds&rft.date=2023-04-25&rft.aulast=Montanaro&rft.aufirst=Domenico&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2F2023%2F04%2F25%2F1171660997%2Fpoll-republicans-trump-president-convicted-crime&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Marist_4-25-2023-702"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Marist_4-25-2023_702-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Marist_4-25-2023_702-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation pressrelease cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/a-second-trump-presidency/">"A Second Trump Presidency?"</a> (Press release). Marist Institute for Public Opinion. April 25, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 25,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=A+Second+Trump+Presidency%3F&rft.pub=Marist+Institute+for+Public+Opinion&rft.date=2023-04-25&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fmaristpoll.marist.edu%2Fpolls%2Fa-second-trump-presidency%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Ipsos_6-13-2023-705"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Ipsos_6-13-2023_705-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Ipsos_6-13-2023_705-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLohrJackson2023" class="citation pressrelease cs1">Lohr, Annaleise Azevedo; Jackson, Chris (June 13, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reutersipsos-survey-trump-maintains-lead-presidential-race-despite-criminal-indictment">"Reuters/Ipsos Survey: Trump maintains lead in presidential race despite criminal indictment"</a> (Press release). Ipsos<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 25,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Reuters%2FIpsos+Survey%3A+Trump+maintains+lead+in+presidential+race+despite+criminal+indictment&rft.pub=Ipsos&rft.date=2023-06-13&rft.aulast=Lohr&rft.aufirst=Annaleise+Azevedo&rft.au=Jackson%2C+Chris&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipsos.com%2Fen-us%2Freutersipsos-survey-trump-maintains-lead-presidential-race-despite-criminal-indictment&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-ABC_News_8-4-2023-709"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-ABC_News_8-4-2023_709-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-ABC_News_8-4-2023_709-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-ABC_News_8-4-2023_709-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-ABC_News_8-4-2023_709-3"><sup><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFAxelrod2023" class="citation news cs1">Axelrod, Tal (August 4, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/thirds-americans-jan-6-charges-trump-poll/story?id=101954747">"Nearly two-thirds of Americans think Jan. 6 charges against Trump are serious: POLL"</a>. ABC News<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 25,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Nearly+two-thirds+of+Americans+think+Jan.+6+charges+against+Trump+are+serious%3A+POLL&rft.date=2023-08-04&rft.aulast=Axelrod&rft.aufirst=Tal&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FPolitics%2Fthirds-americans-jan-6-charges-trump-poll%2Fstory%3Fid%3D101954747&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Ipsos_8-4-2023-710"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Ipsos_8-4-2023_710-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Ipsos_8-4-2023_710-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Ipsos_8-4-2023_710-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Ipsos_8-4-2023_710-3"><sup><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFJacksonFeldmanSawyerMendez2023" class="citation pressrelease cs1">Jackson, Chris; Feldman, Sarah; Sawyer, Johnny; Mendez, Bernard (August 4, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/abc-news-trump-indictment-january-6">"Americans divided on January 6th indictment, in line with other criminal cases against Trump"</a> (Press release). Ipsos<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 25,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Americans+divided+on+January+6th+indictment%2C+in+line+with+other+criminal+cases+against+Trump&rft.pub=Ipsos&rft.date=2023-08-04&rft.aulast=Jackson&rft.aufirst=Chris&rft.au=Feldman%2C+Sarah&rft.au=Sawyer%2C+Johnny&rft.au=Mendez%2C+Bernard&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipsos.com%2Fen-us%2Fabc-news-trump-indictment-january-6&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Quinnipiac_8-16-2023-712"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac_8-16-2023_712-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac_8-16-2023_712-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac_8-16-2023_712-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac_8-16-2023_712-3"><sup><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac_8-16-2023_712-4"><sup><i><b>e</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac_8-16-2023_712-5"><sup><i><b>f</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac_8-16-2023_712-6"><sup><i><b>g</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac_8-16-2023_712-7"><sup><i><b>h</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation pressrelease cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3877">"Majority Of Americans Say Trump Should Be Prosecuted On Federal Criminal Charges Linked To 2020 Election, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; DeSantis Slips, Trump Widens Lead In GOP Primary"</a> (Press release). Quinnipiac University. August 16, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 25,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Majority+Of+Americans+Say+Trump+Should+Be+Prosecuted+On+Federal+Criminal+Charges+Linked+To+2020+Election%2C+Quinnipiac+University+National+Poll+Finds%3B+DeSantis+Slips%2C+Trump+Widens+Lead+In+GOP+Primary&rft.pub=Quinnipiac+University&rft.date=2023-08-16&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fpoll.qu.edu%2Fpoll-release%3Freleaseid%3D3877&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Ipsos_9-21-2023-715"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Ipsos_9-21-2023_715-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Ipsos_9-21-2023_715-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFJacksonLohrRollasonMendez2023" class="citation pressrelease cs1">Jackson, Chris; Lohr, Annaleise Azevedo; Rollason, Charlie; Mendez, Bernard (September 21, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reutersipsos-issues-survey-september-2023">"Reuters/Ipsos Issues Survey September 2023"</a> (Press release). Ipsos<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 25,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Reuters%2FIpsos+Issues+Survey+September+2023&rft.pub=Ipsos&rft.date=2023-09-21&rft.aulast=Jackson&rft.aufirst=Chris&rft.au=Lohr%2C+Annaleise+Azevedo&rft.au=Rollason%2C+Charlie&rft.au=Mendez%2C+Bernard&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipsos.com%2Fen-us%2Freutersipsos-issues-survey-september-2023&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-PBS_NewsHour_12-19-2023-717"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-PBS_NewsHour_12-19-2023_717-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-PBS_NewsHour_12-19-2023_717-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLoffman2023" class="citation news cs1">Loffman, Matt (October 4, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/these-new-poll-numbers-show-why-biden-and-trump-are-stuck-in-a-2024-dead-heat">"These new poll numbers show why Biden and Trump are stuck in a 2024 dead heat"</a>. <i>PBS NewsHour</i>. WETA<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 25,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=PBS+NewsHour&rft.atitle=These+new+poll+numbers+show+why+Biden+and+Trump+are+stuck+in+a+2024+dead+heat&rft.date=2023-10-04&rft.aulast=Loffman&rft.aufirst=Matt&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbs.org%2Fnewshour%2Fpolitics%2Fthese-new-poll-numbers-show-why-biden-and-trump-are-stuck-in-a-2024-dead-heat&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Marist_10-4-2023-718"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Marist_10-4-2023_718-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Marist_10-4-2023_718-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation pressrelease cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/2024-presidential-contest/">"2024 Presidential Contest"</a> (Press release). Marist Institute for Public Opinion. October 4, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 25,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=2024+Presidential+Contest&rft.pub=Marist+Institute+for+Public+Opinion&rft.date=2023-10-04&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fmaristpoll.marist.edu%2Fpolls%2F2024-presidential-contest%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Reuters_12-11-2023-719"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Reuters_12-11-2023_719-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Reuters_12-11-2023_719-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFSullivan2023" class="citation news cs1">Sullivan, Andy (December 11, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-holds-wide-lead-republican-2024-nominating-contest-reutersipsos-poll-2023-12-11/">"Trump holds wide lead in Republican 2024 nominating contest, Reuters/Ipsos poll shows"</a>. <i>Reuters</i>. Thomas Reuters<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 25,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Reuters&rft.atitle=Trump+holds+wide+lead+in+Republican+2024+nominating+contest%2C+Reuters%2FIpsos+poll+shows&rft.date=2023-12-11&rft.aulast=Sullivan&rft.aufirst=Andy&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Fworld%2Fus%2Ftrump-holds-wide-lead-republican-2024-nominating-contest-reutersipsos-poll-2023-12-11%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Yahoo!_News_12-19-2023-721"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Yahoo!_News_12-19-2023_721-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Yahoo!_News_12-19-2023_721-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Yahoo!_News_12-19-2023_721-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Yahoo!_News_12-19-2023_721-3"><sup><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Yahoo!_News_12-19-2023_721-4"><sup><i><b>e</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Yahoo!_News_12-19-2023_721-5"><sup><i><b>f</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Yahoo!_News_12-19-2023_721-6"><sup><i><b>g</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Yahoo!_News_12-19-2023_721-7"><sup><i><b>h</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFRomano2023" class="citation news cs1">Romano, Andrew (December 19, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://news.yahoo.com/poll-trump-is-tied-with-biden-for-now--but-criminal-trials-and-unpopular-plans-pose-risks-for-2024-204526992.html">"Poll: Trump is tied with Biden for now — but criminal trials and unpopular plans pose risks for 2024"</a>. <i>Yahoo! News</i>. Yahoo! Inc<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 25,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Yahoo%21+News&rft.atitle=Poll%3A+Trump+is+tied+with+Biden+for+now+%E2%80%94+but+criminal+trials+and+unpopular+plans+pose+risks+for+2024&rft.date=2023-12-19&rft.aulast=Romano&rft.aufirst=Andrew&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fpoll-trump-is-tied-with-biden-for-now--but-criminal-trials-and-unpopular-plans-pose-risks-for-2024-204526992.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Ipsos_1-16-2024-723"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Ipsos_1-16-2024_723-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Ipsos_1-16-2024_723-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFJacksonLohr2024" class="citation pressrelease cs1">Jackson, Chris; Lohr, Annaleise Azevedo (January 16, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reutersipsos-issues-survey-january-2024">"Reuters/Ipsos Issues Survey - January 2024"</a> (Press release). Ipsos<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 25,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Reuters%2FIpsos+Issues+Survey+-+January+2024&rft.pub=Ipsos&rft.date=2024-01-16&rft.aulast=Jackson&rft.aufirst=Chris&rft.au=Lohr%2C+Annaleise+Azevedo&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipsos.com%2Fen-us%2Freutersipsos-issues-survey-january-2024&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Quinnipiac_9-13-2023-732"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac_9-13-2023_732-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac_9-13-2023_732-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac_9-13-2023_732-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac_9-13-2023_732-3"><sup><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac_9-13-2023_732-4"><sup><i><b>e</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Quinnipiac_9-13-2023_732-5"><sup><i><b>f</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation pressrelease cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3878">"2024 Primary Races: Nearly 3 In 10 Trump Supporters & Half Of Biden Supporters Signal They Are Open To Other Options, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Voters Support Age Limits On Candidates For President & Congress"</a> (Press release). Quinnipiac University. September 13, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 25,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=2024+Primary+Races%3A+Nearly+3+In+10+Trump+Supporters+%26+Half+Of+Biden+Supporters+Signal+They+Are+Open+To+Other+Options%2C+Quinnipiac+University+National+Poll+Finds%3B+Voters+Support+Age+Limits+On+Candidates+For+President+%26+Congress&rft.pub=Quinnipiac+University&rft.date=2023-09-13&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fpoll.qu.edu%2Fpoll-release%3Freleaseid%3D3878&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Ipsos_8-22-2022-744"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Ipsos_8-22-2022_744-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Ipsos_8-22-2022_744-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFJacksonLohrDuran2022" class="citation pressrelease cs1">Jackson, Chris; Lohr, Annaleise Azevedo; Duran, Jocelyn (August 22, 2022). <a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/very-few-americans-believe-political-violence-acceptable">"Very few Americans believe political violence is acceptable"</a> (Press release). Ipsos<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 25,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Very+few+Americans+believe+political+violence+is+acceptable&rft.pub=Ipsos&rft.date=2022-08-22&rft.aulast=Jackson&rft.aufirst=Chris&rft.au=Lohr%2C+Annaleise+Azevedo&rft.au=Duran%2C+Jocelyn&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipsos.com%2Fen-us%2Fvery-few-americans-believe-political-violence-acceptable&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Politico_8-25-2023-750"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Politico_8-25-2023_750-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Politico_8-25-2023_750-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFKhardori2023" class="citation news cs1">Khardori, Ankush (August 25, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/08/25/ipsos-poll-trump-indictment-00112755">"Lock Him Up? A New Poll Has Some Bad News for Trump"</a>. <i>Politico</i>. Axel Springer SE<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 25,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Politico&rft.atitle=Lock+Him+Up%3F+A+New+Poll+Has+Some+Bad+News+for+Trump&rft.date=2023-08-25&rft.aulast=Khardori&rft.aufirst=Ankush&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fnews%2Fmagazine%2F2023%2F08%2F25%2Fipsos-poll-trump-indictment-00112755&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-Ipsos_8-25-2023-751"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Ipsos_8-25-2023_751-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Ipsos_8-25-2023_751-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFJacksonFeldmanMendezIvey2023" class="citation pressrelease cs1">Jackson, Chris; Feldman, Sarah; Mendez, Bernard; Ivey, Tyler; Lohr, Annaleise Azevedo (August 25, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/politico-indictment-august-2023">"Three in five Americans say Trump should stand trial before the Republican primaries or 2024 general election"</a> (Press release). Ipsos<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 25,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Three+in+five+Americans+say+Trump+should+stand+trial+before+the+Republican+primaries+or+2024+general+election&rft.pub=Ipsos&rft.date=2023-08-25&rft.aulast=Jackson&rft.aufirst=Chris&rft.au=Feldman%2C+Sarah&rft.au=Mendez%2C+Bernard&rft.au=Ivey%2C+Tyler&rft.au=Lohr%2C+Annaleise+Azevedo&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipsos.com%2Fen-us%2Fpolitico-indictment-august-2023&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-757"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-757">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFHabermanFeuerIgielnik2023" class="citation news cs1">Haberman, Maggie; Feuer, Alan; Igielnik, Ruth (December 20, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/20/us/politics/trump-poll-conviction-trials.html">"Nearly a Quarter of Trump Voters Say He Shouldn't Be Nominated if Convicted"</a>. <i>The New York Times</i>. The News Times Company<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 25,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+New+York+Times&rft.atitle=Nearly+a+Quarter+of+Trump+Voters+Say+He+Shouldn%27t+Be+Nominated+if+Convicted&rft.date=2023-12-20&rft.aulast=Haberman&rft.aufirst=Maggie&rft.au=Feuer%2C+Alan&rft.au=Igielnik%2C+Ruth&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2023%2F12%2F20%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-poll-conviction-trials.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-759"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-759">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFTara_Suter2024" class="citation news cs1">Tara Suter (January 13, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4407017-long-shot-biden-challengers-trump-ballot-bans-dangerous/">"Long-shot Biden challengers say Trump ballot bans 'dangerous' to democracy"</a>. <i>The Hill</i>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Hill&rft.atitle=Long-shot+Biden+challengers+say+Trump+ballot+bans+%27dangerous%27+to+democracy&rft.date=2024-01-13&rft.au=Tara+Suter&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fhomenews%2Fcampaign%2F4407017-long-shot-biden-challengers-trump-ballot-bans-dangerous%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-760"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-760">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFSamuel_Benson2023" class="citation news cs1">Samuel Benson (December 20, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://www.deseret.com/2023/12/20/24010070/trump-on-the-ballot-his-gop-challengers-say">"Keep Trump on the ballot, his GOP challengers say"</a>. <i>Deseret News</i>. Salt Lake City.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Deseret+News&rft.atitle=Keep+Trump+on+the+ballot%2C+his+GOP+challengers+say&rft.date=2023-12-20&rft.au=Samuel+Benson&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.deseret.com%2F2023%2F12%2F20%2F24010070%2Ftrump-on-the-ballot-his-gop-challengers-say&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
<li id="cite_note-761"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-761">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFAndoneBoyetteWebb2024" class="citation web cs1">Andone, Dakin; Boyette, Chris; Webb, Rachel (January 2, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/02/us/colorado-supreme-court-arrest/index.html">"Man breaks into Colorado Supreme Court overnight and opens fire, police say"</a>. <i>CNN</i>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240102182445/https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/02/us/colorado-supreme-court-arrest/index.html">Archived</a> from the original on January 2, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 2,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=CNN&rft.atitle=Man+breaks+into+Colorado+Supreme+Court+overnight+and+opens+fire%2C+police+say&rft.date=2024-01-02&rft.aulast=Andone&rft.aufirst=Dakin&rft.au=Boyette%2C+Chris&rft.au=Webb%2C+Rachel&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2024%2F01%2F02%2Fus%2Fcolorado-supreme-court-arrest%2Findex.html&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></span>
</li>
</ol></div></div>
<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Works_cited">Works cited</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=35" title="Edit section: Works cited"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2>
<ul><li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFElseaJonesWhitaker2024b" class="citation report cs1">Elsea, Jennifer K.; Jones, Juria L.; Whitaker, L. Paige (January 10, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11096">Disqualification of a Candidate for the Presidency, Part II: Examining Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment as It Applies to Ballot Access</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 14,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Disqualification+of+a+Candidate+for+the+Presidency%2C+Part+II%3A+Examining+Section+3+of+the+Fourteenth+Amendment+as+It+Applies+to+Ballot+Access&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2024-01-10&rft.aulast=Elsea&rft.aufirst=Jennifer+K.&rft.au=Jones%2C+Juria+L.&rft.au=Whitaker%2C+L.+Paige&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FLSB%2FLSB11096&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFElseaJonesWhitaker2024a" class="citation report cs1">Elsea, Jennifer K.; Jones, Juria L.; Whitaker, L. Paige (January 9, 2024). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11094">Disqualification of a Candidate for the Presidency, Part I: Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment as It Applies to the Presidency</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 14,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Disqualification+of+a+Candidate+for+the+Presidency%2C+Part+I%3A+Section+3+of+the+Fourteenth+Amendment+as+It+Applies+to+the+Presidency&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2024-01-09&rft.aulast=Elsea&rft.aufirst=Jennifer+K.&rft.au=Jones%2C+Juria+L.&rft.au=Whitaker%2C+L.+Paige&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FLSB%2FLSB11094&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLash2023" class="citation web cs1">Lash, Kurt T. (December 28, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4591838">"The Meaning and Ambiguity of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment"</a>. <a href="/info/en/?search=Doi_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Doi (identifier)">doi</a>:<a class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.2139%2Fssrn.4591838">10.2139/ssrn.4591838</a>. <a href="/info/en/?search=S2CID_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="S2CID (identifier)">S2CID</a> <a class="external text" href="https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:264902188">264902188</a>. <a href="/info/en/?search=SSRN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="SSRN (identifier)">SSRN</a> <a class="external text" href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4591838">4591838</a><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 2,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=The+Meaning+and+Ambiguity+of+Section+Three+of+the+Fourteenth+Amendment&rft.date=2023-12-28&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.semanticscholar.org%2FCorpusID%3A264902188%23id-name%3DS2CID&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fpapers.ssrn.com%2Fsol3%2Fpapers.cfm%3Fabstract_id%3D4591838%23id-name%3DSSRN&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.2139%2Fssrn.4591838&rft.aulast=Lash&rft.aufirst=Kurt+T.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fpapers.ssrn.com%2Fsol3%2Fpapers.cfm%3Fabstract_id%3D4591838&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFColeGarvey2023" class="citation report cs1">Cole, Jared P.; Garvey, Todd (December 6, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46013">Impeachment and the Constitution</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 29,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Impeachment+and+the+Constitution&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2023-12-06&rft.aulast=Cole&rft.aufirst=Jared+P.&rft.au=Garvey%2C+Todd&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FR%2FR46013&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFGraber2023a" class="citation web cs1">Graber, Mark (October 4, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4591133">"Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment: Our Questions, Their Answers"</a>. <a href="/info/en/?search=Doi_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Doi (identifier)">doi</a>:<a class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.2139%2Fssrn.4591133">10.2139/ssrn.4591133</a>. <a href="/info/en/?search=S2CID_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="S2CID (identifier)">S2CID</a> <a class="external text" href="https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:263687575">263687575</a>. <a href="/info/en/?search=SSRN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="SSRN (identifier)">SSRN</a> <a class="external text" href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4591133">4591133</a>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231230060526/https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4591133">Archived</a> from the original on December 30, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 2,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Section+Three+of+the+Fourteenth+Amendment%3A+Our+Questions%2C+Their+Answers&rft.date=2023-10-04&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.semanticscholar.org%2FCorpusID%3A263687575%23id-name%3DS2CID&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fpapers.ssrn.com%2Fsol3%2Fpapers.cfm%3Fabstract_id%3D4591133%23id-name%3DSSRN&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.2139%2Fssrn.4591133&rft.aulast=Graber&rft.aufirst=Mark&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fpapers.ssrn.com%2Fsol3%2Fpapers.cfm%3Fabstract_id%3D4591133&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFElection_Assistance_Commission2023" class="citation report cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/Write_In_Voting_Designed_Report_508.pdf">Write-In Voting</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span> (Report). <a href="/info/en/?search=Election_Assistance_Commission" title="Election Assistance Commission">Election Assistance Commission</a>. October 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 22,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Write-In+Voting&rft.pub=Election+Assistance+Commission&rft.date=2023-10&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eac.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F2023-10%2FWrite_In_Voting_Designed_Report_508.pdf&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFBlackmanTillman2023" class="citation journal cs1">Blackman, Josh; Tillman, Seth Barrett (September 12, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.2139%2Fssrn.4568771">"Sweeping and Forcing the President into Section 3: A Response to William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Texas_Review_of_Law_and_Politics" title="Texas Review of Law and Politics">Texas Review of Law and Politics</a></i>. <b>28</b>. <a href="/info/en/?search=University_of_Texas_School_of_Law" title="University of Texas School of Law">University of Texas School of Law</a>. <a href="/info/en/?search=Doi_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Doi (identifier)">doi</a>:<span class="id-lock-free" title="Freely accessible"><a class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.2139%2Fssrn.4568771">10.2139/ssrn.4568771</a></span>. <a href="/info/en/?search=S2CID_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="S2CID (identifier)">S2CID</a> <a class="external text" href="https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:262183775">262183775</a>. <a href="/info/en/?search=SSRN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="SSRN (identifier)">SSRN</a> <span class="id-lock-free" title="Freely accessible"><a class="external text" href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4568771">4568771</a></span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Texas+Review+of+Law+and+Politics&rft.atitle=Sweeping+and+Forcing+the+President+into+Section+3%3A+A+Response+to+William+Baude+and+Michael+Stokes+Paulsen&rft.volume=28&rft.date=2023-09-12&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.semanticscholar.org%2FCorpusID%3A262183775%23id-name%3DS2CID&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fpapers.ssrn.com%2Fsol3%2Fpapers.cfm%3Fabstract_id%3D4568771%23id-name%3DSSRN&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.2139%2Fssrn.4568771&rft.aulast=Blackman&rft.aufirst=Josh&rft.au=Tillman%2C+Seth+Barrett&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.2139%252Fssrn.4568771&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFBaudePaulsen2023" class="citation journal cs1">Baude, William; Paulsen, Michael Stokes (August 14, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=4532751">"The Sweep and Force of Section Three"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=University_of_Pennsylvania_Law_Review" title="University of Pennsylvania Law Review">University of Pennsylvania Law Review</a></i>. <a href="/info/en/?search=University_of_Pennsylvania_Law_School" title="University of Pennsylvania Law School">University of Pennsylvania Law School</a>. <a href="/info/en/?search=SSRN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="SSRN (identifier)">SSRN</a> <span class="id-lock-free" title="Freely accessible"><a class="external text" href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751">4532751</a></span><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 29,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=University+of+Pennsylvania+Law+Review&rft.atitle=The+Sweep+and+Force+of+Section+Three&rft.date=2023-08-14&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fpapers.ssrn.com%2Fsol3%2Fpapers.cfm%3Fabstract_id%3D4532751%23id-name%3DSSRN&rft.aulast=Baude&rft.aufirst=William&rft.au=Paulsen%2C+Michael+Stokes&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fssrn.com%2Fabstract%3D4532751&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFBerris2023" class="citation report cs1">Berris, Peter G. (August 3, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11016">Overview of the Indictment of Former President Trump Related to the 2020 Election</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">August 23,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Overview+of+the+Indictment+of+Former+President+Trump+Related+to+the+2020+Election&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2023-08-03&rft.aulast=Berris&rft.aufirst=Peter+G.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FLSB%2FLSB11016&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFBrannon2023" class="citation report cs1">Brannon, Valerie C. (March 10, 2023). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45153">Statutory Interpretation: Theories, Tools, and Trends</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230722162435/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45153">Archived</a> from the original on July 22, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 31,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Statutory+Interpretation%3A+Theories%2C+Tools%2C+and+Trends&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2023-03-10&rft.aulast=Brannon&rft.aufirst=Valerie+C.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FR%2FR45153&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFVlahoplus2023" class="citation journal cs1">Vlahoplus, John (2023). <a class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.2478%2Fbjals-2023-0015">"Insurrection, Disqualification, and the Presidency"</a>. <i>Brit. J. Am. Legal Stud</i>. <a href="/info/en/?search=Doi_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Doi (identifier)">doi</a>:<span class="id-lock-free" title="Freely accessible"><a class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.2478%2Fbjals-2023-0015">10.2478/bjals-2023-0015</a></span>. <a href="/info/en/?search=SSRN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="SSRN (identifier)">SSRN</a> <span class="id-lock-free" title="Freely accessible"><a class="external text" href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4440157">4440157</a></span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Brit.+J.+Am.+Legal+Stud.&rft.atitle=Insurrection%2C+Disqualification%2C+and+the+Presidency&rft.date=2023&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fpapers.ssrn.com%2Fsol3%2Fpapers.cfm%3Fabstract_id%3D4440157%23id-name%3DSSRN&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.2478%2Fbjals-2023-0015&rft.aulast=Vlahoplus&rft.aufirst=John&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.2478%252Fbjals-2023-0015&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFAmado2022" class="citation book cs1">Amado, Alexandra, ed. (2022). <a class="external text" href="https://www.electionlawprogram.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/83833/ELM_Fall_22.pdf"><i>Election Law Manual</i></a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span> (2nd ed.). <a href="/info/en/?search=National_Center_for_State_Courts" title="National Center for State Courts">National Center for State Courts</a>/<a href="/info/en/?search=College_of_William_%26_Mary" title="College of William & Mary">College of William & Mary</a><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 8,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Election+Law+Manual&rft.edition=2nd&rft.pub=National+Center+for+State+Courts%2FCollege+of+William+%26+Mary&rft.date=2022&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.electionlawprogram.org%2F__data%2Fassets%2Fpdf_file%2F0025%2F83833%2FELM_Fall_22.pdf&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFElsea2022" class="citation report cs1">Elsea, Jennifer K. (September 7, 2022). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569">The Insurrection Bar to Office: Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">September 21,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=The+Insurrection+Bar+to+Office%3A+Section+3+of+the+Fourteenth+Amendment&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2022-09-07&rft.aulast=Elsea&rft.aufirst=Jennifer+K.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FLSB%2FLSB10569&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMagliocca2021" class="citation journal cs1">Magliocca, Gerard N. (2021). <a class="external text" href="https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/221946/02%20Magliocca.pdf">"Amnesty and Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment"</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span>. <i>Constitutional Commentary</i>. <b>36</b> (1). <a href="/info/en/?search=University_of_Minnesota_Law_School" title="University of Minnesota Law School">University of Minnesota Law School</a>: 87–130. <a href="/info/en/?search=Doi_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Doi (identifier)">doi</a>:<span class="id-lock-free" title="Freely accessible"><a class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.2139%2Fssrn.3748639">10.2139/ssrn.3748639</a></span>. <a href="/info/en/?search=Hdl_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Hdl (identifier)">hdl</a>:<span class="id-lock-free" title="Freely accessible"><a class="external text" href="https://hdl.handle.net/11299%2F221946">11299/221946</a></span>. <a href="/info/en/?search=SSRN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="SSRN (identifier)">SSRN</a> <span class="id-lock-free" title="Freely accessible"><a class="external text" href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3748639">3748639</a></span>. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230829062946/https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/221946/02%20Magliocca.pdf">Archived</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span> from the original on August 29, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 8,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Constitutional+Commentary&rft.atitle=Amnesty+and+Section+Three+of+the+Fourteenth+Amendment&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=1&rft.pages=87-130&rft.date=2021&rft_id=info%3Ahdl%2F11299%2F221946&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fpapers.ssrn.com%2Fsol3%2Fpapers.cfm%3Fabstract_id%3D3748639%23id-name%3DSSRN&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.2139%2Fssrn.3748639&rft.aulast=Magliocca&rft.aufirst=Gerard+N.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fconservancy.umn.edu%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F11299%2F221946%2F02%2520Magliocca.pdf&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFLynch2021" class="citation journal cs1">Lynch, Myles S. (2021). <a class="external text" href="https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol30/iss1/5">"Disloyalty & Disqualification: Reconstructing Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment"</a>. <i>William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal</i>. <b>30</b> (1). <a href="/info/en/?search=William_%26_Mary_Law_School" title="William & Mary Law School">William & Mary Law School</a>: 153–220. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230903231513/https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol30/iss1/5/">Archived</a> from the original on September 3, 2023<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 28,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=William+%26+Mary+Bill+of+Rights+Journal&rft.atitle=Disloyalty+%26+Disqualification%3A+Reconstructing+Section+3+of+the+Fourteenth+Amendment&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=1&rft.pages=153-220&rft.date=2021&rft.aulast=Lynch&rft.aufirst=Myles+S.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.wm.edu%2Fwmborj%2Fvol30%2Fiss1%2F5&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFBlackmanTillman2021a" class="citation journal cs1">Blackman, Josh; Tillman, Seth Barrett (2021). <a class="external text" href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=3978095">"Is the President an 'Officer of the United States' for Purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment?"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=New_York_University_Journal_of_Law_%26_Liberty" title="New York University Journal of Law & Liberty">New York University Journal of Law & Liberty</a></i>. <b>15</b> (1). <a href="/info/en/?search=New_York_University_School_of_Law" title="New York University School of Law">New York University School of Law</a>. <a href="/info/en/?search=SSRN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="SSRN (identifier)">SSRN</a> <span class="id-lock-free" title="Freely accessible"><a class="external text" href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3978095">3978095</a></span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=New+York+University+Journal+of+Law+%26+Liberty&rft.atitle=Is+the+President+an+%27Officer+of+the+United+States%27+for+Purposes+of+Section+3+of+the+Fourteenth+Amendment%3F&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=1&rft.date=2021&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fpapers.ssrn.com%2Fsol3%2Fpapers.cfm%3Fabstract_id%3D3978095%23id-name%3DSSRN&rft.aulast=Blackman&rft.aufirst=Josh&rft.au=Tillman%2C+Seth+Barrett&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fssrn.com%2Fabstract%3D3978095&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFRybickiWhitaker2020" class="citation report cs1">Rybicki, Elizabeth; Whitaker, L. Paige (December 8, 2020). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32717">Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Session, Including Objections by Members of Congress</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">July 5,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Counting+Electoral+Votes%3A+An+Overview+of+Procedures+at+the+Joint+Session%2C+Including+Objections+by+Members+of+Congress&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2020-12-08&rft.aulast=Rybicki&rft.aufirst=Elizabeth&rft.au=Whitaker%2C+L.+Paige&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FRL%2FRL32717&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFNeale2020c" class="citation report cs1">Neale, Thomas H. (October 9, 2020). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44648">Presidential Elections: Vacancies in Major-Party Candidacies and the Position of President-Elect</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">July 5,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Presidential+Elections%3A+Vacancies+in+Major-Party+Candidacies+and+the+Position+of+President-Elect&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2020-10-09&rft.aulast=Neale&rft.aufirst=Thomas+H.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FR%2FR44648&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFNeale2020b" class="citation report cs1">Neale, Thomas H. (October 6, 2020). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R40504">Contingent Election of the President and Vice President by Congress: Perspectives and Contemporary Analysis</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">July 5,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Contingent+Election+of+the+President+and+Vice+President+by+Congress%3A+Perspectives+and+Contemporary+Analysis&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2020-10-06&rft.aulast=Neale&rft.aufirst=Thomas+H.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FR%2FR40504&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFNeale2020a" class="citation report cs1">Neale, Thomas H. (July 14, 2020). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46450">Presidential Succession: Perspectives and Contemporary Issues for Congress</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">July 19,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Presidential+Succession%3A+Perspectives+and+Contemporary+Issues+for+Congress&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2020-07-14&rft.aulast=Neale&rft.aufirst=Thomas+H.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FR%2FR46450&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFShelly2020" class="citation report cs1">Shelly, Jacob D. (July 10, 2020). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10515">Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Electoral College: States May Restrict Faithless Electors</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">July 10,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Supreme+Court+Clarifies+Rules+for+Electoral+College%3A+States+May+Restrict+Faithless+Electors&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2020-07-10&rft.aulast=Shelly&rft.aufirst=Jacob+D.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FLSB%2FLSB10515&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFNealeNolan2019" class="citation report cs1">Neale, Thomas H.; Nolan, Andrew (October 28, 2019). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43823/9">The National Popular Vote (NPV) Initiative: Direct Election of the President by Interstate Compact</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">November 10,</span> 2019</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=The+National+Popular+Vote+%28NPV%29+Initiative%3A+Direct+Election+of+the+President+by+Interstate+Compact&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2019-10-28&rft.aulast=Neale&rft.aufirst=Thomas+H.&rft.au=Nolan%2C+Andrew&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FR%2FR43823%2F9&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMurrill2018" class="citation report cs1">Murrill, Brandon J. (March 15, 2018). <a class="external text" href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45129">Modes of Constitutional Interpretation</a> (Report). Congressional Research Service<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">December 20,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Modes+of+Constitutional+Interpretation&rft.pub=Congressional+Research+Service&rft.date=2018-03-15&rft.aulast=Murrill&rft.aufirst=Brandon+J.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FR%2FR45129&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFMascott2018" class="citation journal cs1">Mascott, Jennifer L. (2018). <a class="external text" href="https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/officers-united-states/">"Who Are 'Officers of the United States'?"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=Stanford_Law_Review" title="Stanford Law Review">Stanford Law Review</a></i>. <b>70</b> (2). <a href="/info/en/?search=Stanford_Law_School" title="Stanford Law School">Stanford Law School</a>: 443–564. <a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240105140744/https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/officers-united-states/">Archived</a> from the original on January 5, 2024<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 5,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Stanford+Law+Review&rft.atitle=Who+Are+%27Officers+of+the+United+States%27%3F&rft.volume=70&rft.issue=2&rft.pages=443-564&rft.date=2018&rft.aulast=Mascott&rft.aufirst=Jennifer+L.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.stanfordlawreview.org%2Fprint%2Farticle%2Fofficers-united-states%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFNicoletti2017" class="citation book cs1">Nicoletti, Cynthia (2017). <i>Secession on Trial: The Treason Prosecution of Jefferson Davis</i>. New York: <a href="/info/en/?search=Cambridge_University_Press" title="Cambridge University Press">Cambridge University Press</a>. <a href="/info/en/?search=ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Special:BookSources/978-1108415521" title="Special:BookSources/978-1108415521"><bdi>978-1108415521</bdi></a>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Secession+on+Trial%3A+The+Treason+Prosecution+of+Jefferson+Davis&rft.place=New+York&rft.pub=Cambridge+University+Press&rft.date=2017&rft.isbn=978-1108415521&rft.aulast=Nicoletti&rft.aufirst=Cynthia&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFContinuity_of_Government_Commission2009" class="citation report cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_continuity_of_government.pdf">Preserving Our Institutions: The Continuity of the Presidency</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span> (Report). Continuity of Government Commission. June 2009<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">May 18,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Preserving+Our+Institutions%3A+The+Continuity+of+the+Presidency&rft.pub=Continuity+of+Government+Commission&rft.date=2009-06&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.brookings.edu%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F06%2F06_continuity_of_government.pdf&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFRossiter2003" class="citation book cs1"><a href="/info/en/?search=Clinton_Rossiter" title="Clinton Rossiter">Rossiter, Clinton</a>, ed. (2003) [1961]. <i>The Federalist Papers</i>. <a href="/info/en/?search=New_American_Library" title="New American Library">Signet Classics</a>. <a href="/info/en/?search=ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Special:BookSources/978-0-451-52881-0" title="Special:BookSources/978-0-451-52881-0"><bdi>978-0-451-52881-0</bdi></a>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=The+Federalist+Papers&rft.pub=Signet+Classics&rft.date=2003&rft.isbn=978-0-451-52881-0&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFGamboa2001" class="citation report cs1">Gamboa, Anthony H. (March 13, 2001). <a class="external text" href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-01-470.pdf">Elections: The Scope of Congressional Authority in Election Administration</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span> (Report). <a href="/info/en/?search=Government_Accountability_Office" title="Government Accountability Office">General Accounting Office</a><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">June 8,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Elections%3A+The+Scope+of+Congressional+Authority+in+Election+Administration&rft.pub=General+Accounting+Office&rft.date=2001-03-13&rft.aulast=Gamboa&rft.aufirst=Anthony+H.&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gao.gov%2Fassets%2Fgao-01-470.pdf&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/010524zr2_886b.pdf">"Trump v Anderson - Certiorari Granted"</a> <span class="cs1-format">(PDF)</span>. <i>scotus.gov</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">January 5,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=scotus.gov&rft.atitle=Trump+v+Anderson+-+Certiorari+Granted&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2Forders%2Fcourtorders%2F010524zr2_886b.pdf&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li>
<li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite id="CITEREFSenate_Journal_42(3)" class="citation journal cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(sj06845))">"Third Session of the 42nd Congress"</a>. <i><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Senate_Journal" title="United States Senate Journal">United States Senate Journal</a></i>. <b>68</b>. <a href="/info/en/?search=Library_of_Congress" title="Library of Congress">Library of Congress</a>. February 12, 1873<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">July 1,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=United+States+Senate+Journal&rft.atitle=Third+Session+of+the+42nd+Congress&rft.volume=68&rft.date=1873-02-12&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fmemory.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fquery%2Fr%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field%28DOCID%2B%40lit%28sj06845%29%29&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li></ul>
<h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Further_reading">Further reading</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump&action=edit&section=36" title="Edit section: Further reading"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3>
<ul><li><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1215172403"><cite class="citation episode cs1"><a class="external text" href="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/democracy-on-trial/">"Democracy on Trial"</a>. <a href="/info/en/?search=Frontline_(American_TV_program)" title="Frontline (American TV program)"><i>Frontline</i></a>. Season 42. Episode 11. <a href="/info/en/?search=PBS" title="PBS">PBS</a>. <a href="/info/en/?search=WGBH-TV" title="WGBH-TV">WGBH-TV</a><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">February 3,</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Frontline&rft.series=Season+42.+Episode+11&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbs.org%2Fwgbh%2Ffrontline%2Fdocumentary%2Fdemocracy-on-trial%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3A2024+presidential+eligibility+of+Donald+Trump" class="Z3988"></span></li></ul>
<div class="navbox-styles"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1129693374"><style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r1061467846">.mw-parser-output .navbox{box-sizing:border-box;border:1px solid #a2a9b1;width:100%;clear:both;font-size:88%;text-align:center;padding:1px;margin:1em auto 0}.mw-parser-output .navbox .navbox{margin-top:0}.mw-parser-output .navbox+.navbox,.mw-parser-output .navbox+.navbox-styles+.navbox{margin-top:-1px}.mw-parser-output .navbox-inner,.mw-parser-output .navbox-subgroup{width:100%}.mw-parser-output .navbox-group,.mw-parser-output .navbox-title,.mw-parser-output .navbox-abovebelow{padding:0.25em 1em;line-height:1.5em;text-align:center}.mw-parser-output .navbox-group{white-space:nowrap;text-align:right}.mw-parser-output .navbox,.mw-parser-output .navbox-subgroup{background-color:#fdfdfd}.mw-parser-output .navbox-list{line-height:1.5em;border-color:#fdfdfd}.mw-parser-output .navbox-list-with-group{text-align:left;border-left-width:2px;border-left-style:solid}.mw-parser-output tr+tr>.navbox-abovebelow,.mw-parser-output tr+tr>.navbox-group,.mw-parser-output tr+tr>.navbox-image,.mw-parser-output tr+tr>.navbox-list{border-top:2px solid #fdfdfd}.mw-parser-output .navbox-title{background-color:#ccf}.mw-parser-output .navbox-abovebelow,.mw-parser-output .navbox-group,.mw-parser-output .navbox-subgroup .navbox-title{background-color:#ddf}.mw-parser-output .navbox-subgroup .navbox-group,.mw-parser-output .navbox-subgroup .navbox-abovebelow{background-color:#e6e6ff}.mw-parser-output .navbox-even{background-color:#f7f7f7}.mw-parser-output .navbox-odd{background-color:transparent}.mw-parser-output .navbox .hlist td dl,.mw-parser-output .navbox .hlist td ol,.mw-parser-output .navbox .hlist td ul,.mw-parser-output .navbox td.hlist dl,.mw-parser-output .navbox td.hlist ol,.mw-parser-output .navbox td.hlist ul{padding:0.125em 0}.mw-parser-output .navbox .navbar{display:block;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .navbox-title .navbar{float:left;text-align:left;margin-right:0.5em}</style></div><div role="navigation" class="navbox" aria-labelledby="January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack" style="padding:3px"><table class="nowraplinks hlist mw-collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner" style="border-spacing:0;background:transparent;color:inherit"><tbody><tr><th scope="col" class="navbox-title" colspan="2"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1129693374"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1063604349"><div class="navbar plainlinks hlist navbar-mini"><ul><li class="nv-view"><a href="/info/en/?search=Template:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack_navbox" title="Template:January 6 United States Capitol attack navbox"><abbr title="View this template" style=";;background:none transparent;border:none;box-shadow:none;padding:0;">v</abbr></a></li><li class="nv-talk"><a href="/info/en/?search=Template_talk:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack_navbox" title="Template talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack navbox"><abbr title="Discuss this template" style=";;background:none transparent;border:none;box-shadow:none;padding:0;">t</abbr></a></li><li class="nv-edit"><a href="/info/en/?search=Special:EditPage/Template:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack_navbox" title="Special:EditPage/Template:January 6 United States Capitol attack navbox"><abbr title="Edit this template" style=";;background:none transparent;border:none;box-shadow:none;padding:0;">e</abbr></a></li></ul></div><div id="January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack" style="font-size:114%;margin:0 4em"><a href="/info/en/?search=January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack" title="January 6 United States Capitol attack">January 6 United States Capitol attack</a></div></th></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Background</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em"></div><table class="nowraplinks navbox-subgroup" style="border-spacing:0"><tbody><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%;text-align:center;"><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Capitol" title="United States Capitol">U.S. Capitol</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Capitol_Police" title="United States Capitol Police">United States Capitol Police</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Harry_Dunn_(police_officer)" title="Harry Dunn (police officer)">Harry Dunn</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Michael_Fanone" title="Michael Fanone">Michael Fanone</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Eugene_Goodman" title="Eugene Goodman">Eugene Goodman</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Steven_Sund" title="Steven Sund">Steven Sund</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Yogananda_Pittman" title="Yogananda Pittman">Yogananda Pittman</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Timeline_of_violent_incidents_at_the_United_States_Capitol" title="Timeline of violent incidents at the United States Capitol">Timeline of prior security incidents</a></li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%;text-align:center;"><a href="/info/en/?search=2020_United_States_presidential_election" title="2020 United States presidential election">Election</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=2020%E2%80%9321_United_States_election_protests" title="2020–21 United States election protests">2020–21 presidential election protests</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2021_United_States_Electoral_College_vote_count" title="2021 United States Electoral College vote count">2021 Electoral College vote count</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election" title="Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election">Attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_fake_electors_plot" title="Trump fake electors plot">Trump fake electors plot</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Republican_reactions_to_Donald_Trump%27s_claims_of_2020_election_fraud" title="Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud">Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud</a></li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%;text-align:center;">Other</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Predictions_of_violence_ahead_of_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack" title="Predictions of violence ahead of the January 6 United States Capitol attack">Predictions of violence</a></li>
<li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=1776_Returns" title="1776 Returns">1776 Returns</a></i></li></ul>
</div></td></tr></tbody></table><div></div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Events</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Planning_of_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack" title="Planning of the January 6 United States Capitol attack">Planning</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Timeline_of_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack" title="Timeline of the January 6 United States Capitol attack">Timeline of attack</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Law_enforcement_response_to_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack" title="Law enforcement response to the January 6 United States Capitol attack">Law enforcement response</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Killing_of_Ashli_Babbitt" title="Killing of Ashli Babbitt">killing of Ashli Babbitt</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Death_of_Brian_Sicknick" title="Death of Brian Sicknick">Death of Brian Sicknick</a></li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Participants</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em"></div><table class="nowraplinks navbox-subgroup" style="border-spacing:0"><tbody><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%;text-align:center;"><a href="/info/en/?search=Proud_Boys" title="Proud Boys">Proud Boys</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Enrique_Tarrio" title="Enrique Tarrio">Enrique Tarrio</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Joe_Biggs" title="Joe Biggs">Joe Biggs</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Ethan_Nordean" title="Ethan Nordean">Ethan Nordean</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Dominic_Pezzola" title="Dominic Pezzola">Dominic Pezzola</a></li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%;text-align:center;"><a href="/info/en/?search=Oath_Keepers" title="Oath Keepers">Oath Keepers</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Stewart_Rhodes" title="Stewart Rhodes">Stewart Rhodes</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Kelly_Meggs" title="Kelly Meggs">Kelly Meggs</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Jeremy_Bertino" title="Jeremy Bertino">Jeremy Bertino</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Ray_Epps_(military_veteran)" title="Ray Epps (military veteran)">Ray Epps</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Roberto_Minuta" title="Roberto Minuta">Roberto Minuta</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Jessica_Marie_Watkins" title="Jessica Marie Watkins">Jessica Marie Watkins</a></li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%;text-align:center;">Others</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Richard_Barnett_(Capitol_rioter)" title="Richard Barnett (Capitol rioter)">Richard Barnett</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Jacob_Chansley" title="Jacob Chansley">Jacob Chansley</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Derrick_Evans_(politician)" title="Derrick Evans (politician)">Derrick Evans</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Nick_Fuentes" title="Nick Fuentes">Nick Fuentes</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Baked_Alaska_(livestreamer)" title="Baked Alaska (livestreamer)">Tim "Baked Alaska" Gionet</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Simone_Gold" title="Simone Gold">Simone Gold</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Couy_Griffin" title="Couy Griffin">Couy Griffin</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Alan_Hostetter" title="Alan Hostetter">Alan Hostetter</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Adam_Christian_Johnson" title="Adam Christian Johnson">Adam Christian Johnson</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Jay_Johnston" title="Jay Johnston">Jay Johnston</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Klete_Keller" title="Klete Keller">Klete Keller</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Carol_Kicinski" title="Carol Kicinski">Carol Kicinski</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Kevin_James_Lyons" title="Kevin James Lyons">Kevin James Lyons</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Doug_Mastriano" title="Doug Mastriano">Doug Mastriano</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Jaden_McNeil" title="Jaden McNeil">Jaden McNeil</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Evan_Neumann" title="Evan Neumann">Evan Neumann</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Nicholas_Ochs" title="Nicholas Ochs">Nicholas Ochs</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Rachel_Powell" title="Rachel Powell">Rachel Powell</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Libs_of_TikTok" title="Libs of TikTok">Chaya "Libs of TikTok" Raichik</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Guy_Reffitt" title="Guy Reffitt">Guy Reffitt</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Dana_Rohrabacher" title="Dana Rohrabacher">Dana Rohrabacher</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Rick_Saccone" title="Rick Saccone">Rick Saccone</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Ryan_Samsel" title="Ryan Samsel">Ryan Samsel</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Ronald_Sandlin" title="Ronald Sandlin">Ronald Sandlin</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Jon_Schaffer" title="Jon Schaffer">Jon Schaffer</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Kevin_Seefried" title="Kevin Seefried">Kevin Seefried</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Owen_Shroyer" title="Owen Shroyer">Owen Shroyer</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Peter_Francis_Stager" title="Peter Francis Stager">Peter Francis Stager</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=WalkAway_campaign" title="WalkAway campaign">Brandon Straka</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=John_Earle_Sullivan" title="John Earle Sullivan">John Earle Sullivan</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Christopher_John_Worrell" title="Christopher John Worrell">Christopher John Worrell</a></li></ul>
</div></td></tr></tbody></table><div></div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%"><a href="/info/en/?search=Aftermath_of_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack" title="Aftermath of the January 6 United States Capitol attack">Aftermath</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=2021_United_States_inauguration_week_protests" title="2021 United States inauguration week protests">2021 U.S. inauguration week protests</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_companies_that_halted_U.S._political_contributions_in_January_2021" title="List of companies that halted U.S. political contributions in January 2021">Companies that halted political contributions</a></li>
<li>Reactions
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Domestic_reactions_to_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack" title="Domestic reactions to the January 6 United States Capitol attack">domestic</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=International_reactions_to_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack" title="International reactions to the January 6 United States Capitol attack">international</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Second_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump" title="Second impeachment of Donald Trump">Second impeachment of Donald Trump</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Second_impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump" title="Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump">trial</a></li></ul></li>
<li>Suicides
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Death_of_Howard_Liebengood" title="Death of Howard Liebengood">Howard Liebengood</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Death_of_Jeffrey_L._Smith" title="Death of Jeffrey L. Smith">Jeffrey L. Smith</a></li></ul></li>
<li>Proceedings
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Justice_Department_investigation_into_attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_presidential_election" title="United States Justice Department investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election">Justice Department investigation</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=January_6_commission" title="January 6 commission">January 6 commission</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_the_January_6_Attack" title="United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack">House Select Committee</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Criminal_proceedings_in_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack" title="Criminal proceedings in the January 6 United States Capitol attack">criminal proceedings</a></li>
<li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Fischer_v._United_States" title="Fischer v. United States">Fischer v. United States</a></i></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Public_hearings_of_the_United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_the_January_6_Attack" title="Public hearings of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack">public hearings</a></li>
<li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Thompson_v._Trump" title="Thompson v. Trump">Thompson v. Trump</a></i></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Smith_special_counsel_investigation" title="Smith special counsel investigation">Smith special counsel investigation</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_(election_obstruction_case)" title="Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)">Federal prosecution of Donald Trump</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Justice_for_J6_rally" title="Justice for J6 rally">Justice for J6 rally</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2021_Facebook_leak" title="2021 Facebook leak">2021 Facebook company files leak</a></li>
<li><a class="mw-selflink selflink">2024 presidential eligibility of Donald Trump</a>
<ul><li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_v._Anderson" title="Trump v. Anderson">Trump v. Anderson</a></i></li></ul></li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Related</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Alex_Jones" title="Alex Jones">Alex Jones</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Ali_Alexander" title="Ali Alexander">Ali Alexander</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Kathy_Barnette" title="Kathy Barnette">Kathy Barnette</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Boogaloo_movement" title="Boogaloo movement">Boogaloo movement</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Jericho_March" title="Jericho March">Jericho March</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Groypers" title="Groypers">Groypers</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=QAnon" title="QAnon">QAnon</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Rudy_Giuliani" title="Rudy Giuliani">Rudy Giuliani</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Sedition_Caucus" title="Sedition Caucus">Sedition Caucus</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Social_media_use_by_Donald_Trump" title="Social media use by Donald Trump">Social media use by Donald Trump</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Three_Percenters" title="Three Percenters">Three Percenters</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trumpism" title="Trumpism">Trumpism</a></li>
<li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Day_of_Rage:_How_Trump_Supporters_Took_the_U.S._Capitol" title="Day of Rage: How Trump Supporters Took the U.S. Capitol">Day of Rage: How Trump Supporters Took the U.S. Capitol</a></i> (2021)</li>
<li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Four_Hours_at_the_Capitol" title="Four Hours at the Capitol">Four Hours at the Capitol</a></i> (2021)</li>
<li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=This_Place_Rules" title="This Place Rules">This Place Rules</a></i> (2022)</li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Justice_for_All_(song)" title="Justice for All (song)">"Justice for All"</a> (2023)</li>
<li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=A_Storm_Foretold" title="A Storm Foretold">A Storm Foretold</a></i> (2023)</li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Democratic_backsliding_in_the_United_States" title="Democratic backsliding in the United States">Democratic backsliding in the United States</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Cincinnati_FBI_field_office_attack" class="mw-redirect" title="Cincinnati FBI field office attack">Cincinnati FBI field office attack</a></li></ul>
</div></td></tr></tbody></table></div>
<div class="navbox-styles"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1129693374"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1061467846"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1129693374"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1063604349"></div><div role="navigation" class="navbox" aria-labelledby="(←_2020)_2024_United_States_presidential_election_(2028_→)" style="padding:3px"><table class="nowraplinks hlist mw-collapsible mw-collapsed navbox-inner" style="border-spacing:0;background:transparent;color:inherit"><tbody><tr><th scope="col" class="navbox-title" colspan="2"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1129693374"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1063604349"><div class="navbar plainlinks hlist navbar-mini"><ul><li class="nv-view"><a href="/info/en/?search=Template:2024_United_States_presidential_election" title="Template:2024 United States presidential election"><abbr title="View this template" style=";;background:none transparent;border:none;box-shadow:none;padding:0;">v</abbr></a></li><li class="nv-talk"><a href="/info/en/?search=Template_talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election" title="Template talk:2024 United States presidential election"><abbr title="Discuss this template" style=";;background:none transparent;border:none;box-shadow:none;padding:0;">t</abbr></a></li><li class="nv-edit"><a href="/info/en/?search=Special:EditPage/Template:2024_United_States_presidential_election" title="Special:EditPage/Template:2024 United States presidential election"><abbr title="Edit this template" style=";;background:none transparent;border:none;box-shadow:none;padding:0;">e</abbr></a></li></ul></div><div id="(←_2020)_2024_United_States_presidential_election_(2028_→)" style="font-size:114%;margin:0 4em">(<a href="/info/en/?search=2020_United_States_presidential_election" title="2020 United States presidential election">← 2020</a>) <a href="/info/en/?search=2024_United_States_presidential_election" title="2024 United States presidential election">2024 United States presidential election</a> (2028 →)</div></th></tr><tr><td class="navbox-abovebelow" colspan="2"><div>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=2024_United_States_elections" title="2024 United States elections">2024 United States elections</a></li>
<li>Polls
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election" title="Nationwide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election">national</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election" title="Statewide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election">state</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Timeline_of_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election" title="Timeline of the 2024 United States presidential election">Timeline</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2024_United_States_presidential_debates" title="2024 United States presidential debates">Debates</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Fundraising_in_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election" title="Fundraising in the 2024 United States presidential election">Fundraising</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Ballot_access_in_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election" title="Ballot access in the 2024 United States presidential election">Ballot access</a></li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%;text-align: right;;box-shadow: inset -5px 0 0 0 #3333FF;"><a href="/info/en/?search=Democratic_Party_(United_States)" title="Democratic Party (United States)">Democratic Party</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em"></div><table class="nowraplinks navbox-subgroup" style="border-spacing:0"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" class="navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries" title="2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries">Primaries</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates" title="2024 Democratic Party presidential candidates">Candidates</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums" title="2024 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums">Debates and forums</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Results_of_the_2024_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries" title="Results of the 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries">Results</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Democratic_National_Convention" title="2024 Democratic National Convention">Convention</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Opinion_polling_for_the_2024_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries" title="Opinion polling for the 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries">Polls</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war_protest_vote_movements" title="Israel–Hamas war protest vote movements">Protest votes</a></li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%"><a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates" title="2024 Democratic Party presidential candidates">Candidates</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><b>Presumptive nominee: <a href="/info/en/?search=Joe_Biden" title="Joe Biden">Joe Biden</a></b>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Joe_Biden_2024_presidential_campaign" title="Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign">campaign</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_Joe_Biden_2024_presidential_campaign_primary_endorsements" title="List of Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign primary endorsements">endorsements</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Political_positions_of_Joe_Biden" title="Political positions of Joe Biden">positions</a></li></ul></li>
<li><b>Presumptive VP nominee: <a href="/info/en/?search=Kamala_Harris" title="Kamala Harris">Kamala Harris</a></b>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Political_positions_of_Kamala_Harris" title="Political positions of Kamala Harris">positions</a></li></ul></li></ul>
<dl><dt>Other candidates</dt>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Terrisa_Bukovinac" title="Terrisa Bukovinac">Terrisa Bukovinac</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Bob_Ely" title="Bob Ely">Bob Ely</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Joe_Exotic" title="Joe Exotic">Joe Exotic</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Jason_Palmer_(politician)" title="Jason Palmer (politician)">Jason Palmer</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Paperboy_Prince" title="Paperboy Prince">Paperboy Prince</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Vermin_Supreme" title="Vermin Supreme">Vermin Supreme</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Marianne_Williamson" title="Marianne Williamson">Marianne Williamson</a>
<dl><dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Marianne_Williamson_2024_presidential_campaign" title="Marianne Williamson 2024 presidential campaign">campaign</a></dd></dl></dd></dl>
<dl><dt>Withdrew during primaries</dt>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Dean_Phillips" title="Dean Phillips">Dean Phillips</a>
<dl><dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Dean_Phillips_2024_presidential_campaign" title="Dean Phillips 2024 presidential campaign">campaign</a></dd></dl></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Cenk_Uygur" title="Cenk Uygur">Cenk Uygur</a></dd></dl>
<dl><dt>Withdrew before primaries</dt>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr." title="Robert F. Kennedy Jr.">Robert F. Kennedy Jr.</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Jerome_Segal" title="Jerome Segal">Jerome Segal</a></dd></dl>
</div></td></tr></tbody></table><div></div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%;text-align: right;;box-shadow: inset -5px 0 0 0 #E81B23;"><a href="/info/en/?search=Republican_Party_(United_States)" title="Republican Party (United States)">Republican Party</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em"></div><table class="nowraplinks navbox-subgroup" style="border-spacing:0"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" class="navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries" title="2024 Republican Party presidential primaries">Primaries</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Republican_Party_presidential_candidates" title="2024 Republican Party presidential candidates">Candidates</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Republican_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums" title="2024 Republican Party presidential debates and forums">Debates and forums</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Results_of_the_2024_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries" title="Results of the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries">Results</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Republican_National_Convention" title="2024 Republican National Convention">Convention</a></li>
<li>Polls
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2024_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries" title="Nationwide opinion polling for the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries">national</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_2024_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries" title="Statewide opinion polling for the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries">state</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Endorsements_in_the_2024_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries" title="Endorsements in the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries">Endorsements</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Republican_Party_vice_presidential_candidate_selection" title="2024 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection">VP candidate selection</a></li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%"><a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Republican_Party_presidential_candidates" title="2024 Republican Party presidential candidates">Candidates</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><b>Presumptive nominee: <a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump" title="Donald Trump">Donald Trump</a></b> (<span style="color:#FF8C00;">▌</span><a href="/info/en/?search=Conservative_Party_of_New_York_State" title="Conservative Party of New York State">CPNYS</a> nominee)
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign" title="Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign">campaign</a></li>
<li><a class="mw-selflink selflink">eligibility</a>
<ul><li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_v._Anderson" title="Trump v. Anderson">Trump v. Anderson</a></i></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign_endorsements" title="List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign endorsements">endorsements</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign_primary_endorsements" title="List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign primary endorsements">primary</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_Republicans_who_oppose_the_Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign" title="List of Republicans who oppose the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign">opposition</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump" title="Political positions of Donald Trump">positions</a></li></ul></li></ul>
<dl><dt>Other candidates</dt>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=John_Anthony_Castro" title="John Anthony Castro">John Anthony Castro</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Sam_Sloan" title="Sam Sloan">Sam Sloan</a></dd></dl>
<dl><dt>Withdrew during primaries</dt>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Ryan_Binkley" title="Ryan Binkley">Ryan Binkley</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Ron_DeSantis" title="Ron DeSantis">Ron DeSantis</a>
<dl><dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Ron_DeSantis_2024_presidential_campaign" title="Ron DeSantis 2024 presidential campaign">campaign</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_Ron_DeSantis_2024_presidential_campaign_endorsements" title="List of Ron DeSantis 2024 presidential campaign endorsements">endorsements</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Political_positions_of_Ron_DeSantis" title="Political positions of Ron DeSantis">positions</a></dd></dl></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Nikki_Haley" title="Nikki Haley">Nikki Haley</a>
<dl><dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Nikki_Haley_2024_presidential_campaign" title="Nikki Haley 2024 presidential campaign">campaign</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_Nikki_Haley_2024_presidential_campaign_endorsements" title="List of Nikki Haley 2024 presidential campaign endorsements">endorsements</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Political_positions_of_Nikki_Haley" title="Political positions of Nikki Haley">positions</a></dd></dl></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Asa_Hutchinson" title="Asa Hutchinson">Asa Hutchinson</a>
<dl><dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Asa_Hutchinson_2024_presidential_campaign" title="Asa Hutchinson 2024 presidential campaign">campaign</a></dd></dl></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=E._W._Jackson" title="E. W. Jackson">E. W. Jackson</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Vivek_Ramaswamy" title="Vivek Ramaswamy">Vivek Ramaswamy</a>
<dl><dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Vivek_Ramaswamy_2024_presidential_campaign" title="Vivek Ramaswamy 2024 presidential campaign">campaign</a></dd></dl></dd></dl>
<dl><dt>Withdrew before primaries</dt>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Doug_Burgum" title="Doug Burgum">Doug Burgum</a>
<dl><dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Doug_Burgum_2024_presidential_campaign" title="Doug Burgum 2024 presidential campaign">campaign</a></dd></dl></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Chris_Christie" title="Chris Christie">Chris Christie</a>
<dl><dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Chris_Christie_2024_presidential_campaign" title="Chris Christie 2024 presidential campaign">campaign</a></dd></dl></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Larry_Elder" title="Larry Elder">Larry Elder</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Will_Hurd" title="Will Hurd">Will Hurd</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Perry_Johnson_(businessman)" title="Perry Johnson (businessman)">Perry Johnson</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Steve_Laffey" title="Steve Laffey">Steve Laffey</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Mike_Pence" title="Mike Pence">Mike Pence</a>
<dl><dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Mike_Pence_2024_presidential_campaign" title="Mike Pence 2024 presidential campaign">campaign</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Political_positions_of_Mike_Pence" title="Political positions of Mike Pence">positions</a></dd></dl></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Tim_Scott" title="Tim Scott">Tim Scott</a>
<dl><dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Tim_Scott_2024_presidential_campaign" title="Tim Scott 2024 presidential campaign">campaign</a></dd></dl></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Corey_Stapleton" title="Corey Stapleton">Corey Stapleton</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Francis_Suarez" title="Francis Suarez">Francis Suarez</a></dd></dl>
</div></td></tr></tbody></table><div></div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%;text-align: right;;box-shadow: inset -5px 0 0 0 #FED105;"><a href="/info/en/?search=Libertarian_Party_(United_States)" title="Libertarian Party (United States)">Libertarian Party</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em"></div><table class="nowraplinks navbox-subgroup" style="border-spacing:0"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" class="navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Libertarian_Party_presidential_primaries" title="2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries">Primaries</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Libertarian_National_Convention" title="2024 Libertarian National Convention">Convention</a></li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Candidates</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<dl><dt>Declared</dt>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Chase_Oliver" title="Chase Oliver">Chase Oliver</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Art_Olivier" title="Art Olivier">Art Olivier</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Michael_Rectenwald" title="Michael Rectenwald">Michael Rectenwald</a></dd></dl>
<dl><dt>Expressed interest</dt>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr." title="Robert F. Kennedy Jr.">Robert F. Kennedy Jr.</a></dd></dl>
<dl><dt>Withdrew before primaries</dt>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Joe_Exotic" title="Joe Exotic">Joe Exotic</a></dd></dl>
</div></td></tr></tbody></table><div></div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%;text-align: right;;box-shadow: inset -5px 0 0 0 #17aa5c;"><a href="/info/en/?search=Green_Party_of_the_United_States" title="Green Party of the United States">Green Party</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em"></div><table class="nowraplinks navbox-subgroup" style="border-spacing:0"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" class="navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Green_Party_presidential_primaries" title="2024 Green Party presidential primaries">Primaries</a></li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Candidates</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<dl><dt>Declared</dt>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Jill_Stein" title="Jill Stein">Jill Stein</a>
<dl><dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Jill_Stein_2024_presidential_campaign" title="Jill Stein 2024 presidential campaign">campaign</a></dd></dl></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Randy_Toler" title="Randy Toler">Randy Toler</a></dd></dl>
<dl><dt>Withdrew before primaries</dt>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Emanuel_Pastreich" title="Emanuel Pastreich">Emanuel Pastreich</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Cornel_West" title="Cornel West">Cornel West</a></dd></dl>
</div></td></tr></tbody></table><div></div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%;text-align: right;;box-shadow: inset -5px 0 0 0 #DDDDBB;">Independent</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em"></div><table class="nowraplinks navbox-subgroup" style="border-spacing:0"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" class="navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><b>Candidate: <a href="/info/en/?search=Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr." title="Robert F. Kennedy Jr.">Robert F. Kennedy Jr.</a></b>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr._2024_presidential_campaign" title="Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign">campaign</a></li></ul></li>
<li><b>Running mate: <a href="/info/en/?search=Nicole_Shanahan" title="Nicole Shanahan">Nicole Shanahan</a></b></li></ul>
</div></td></tr></tbody></table><div></div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%;text-align: right;;box-shadow: inset -5px 0 0 0 #DDDDBB;">Independent <br /><span style="color:#5FD170;">▌</span><a href="/info/en/?search=Oregon_Progressive_Party" title="Oregon Progressive Party">OPP</a> · <span style="color:#FF3300;">▌</span><a href="/info/en/?search=Socialist_Alternative_(United_States)" title="Socialist Alternative (United States)">SA</a> · <span style="color:#DDDDBB;">▌</span><a href="/info/en/?search=United_Citizens_Party" title="United Citizens Party">UCP</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em"></div><table class="nowraplinks navbox-subgroup" style="border-spacing:0"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" class="navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><b>Candidate: <a href="/info/en/?search=Cornel_West" title="Cornel West">Cornel West</a></b>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Cornel_West_2024_presidential_campaign" title="Cornel West 2024 presidential campaign">campaign</a></li></ul></li>
<li><b>Running mate: <a href="/info/en/?search=Melina_Abdullah" title="Melina Abdullah">Melina Abdullah</a></b></li></ul>
</div></td></tr></tbody></table><div></div></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em"></div><table class="nowraplinks mw-collapsible autocollapse navbox-subgroup" style="border-spacing:0"><tbody><tr><th scope="col" class="navbox-title" colspan="2"><div class="navbar plainlinks hlist navbar-mini"><ul><li class="nv-view"><a href="/info/en/?search=Template:2024_United_States_presidential_election" title="Template:2024 United States presidential election"><abbr title="View this template" style=";;background:none transparent;border:none;box-shadow:none;padding:0;">v</abbr></a></li><li class="nv-talk"><a href="/info/en/?search=Template_talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election" title="Template talk:2024 United States presidential election"><abbr title="Discuss this template" style=";;background:none transparent;border:none;box-shadow:none;padding:0;">t</abbr></a></li><li class="nv-edit"><a href="/info/en/?search=Special:EditPage/Template:2024_United_States_presidential_election" title="Special:EditPage/Template:2024 United States presidential election"><abbr title="Edit this template" style=";;background:none transparent;border:none;box-shadow:none;padding:0;">e</abbr></a></li></ul></div><div id="Other_third-party_candidates" style="font-size:114%;margin:0 4em">Other <a href="/info/en/?search=Third_party_and_independent_candidates_for_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election" title="Third party and independent candidates for the 2024 United States presidential election">third-party candidates</a></div></th></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%;box-shadow: inset -5px 0 0 0 #F37120;"><a href="/info/en/?search=American_Solidarity_Party" title="American Solidarity Party">American Solidarity Party</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><b>Nominee: <a href="/info/en/?search=Peter_Sonski" title="Peter Sonski">Peter Sonski</a></b></li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%;box-shadow: inset -5px 0 0 0 #A356DE;"><a href="/info/en/?search=Constitution_Party_(United_States)" title="Constitution Party (United States)">Constitution Party</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<dl><dt>Declared</dt>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Joel_Skousen" title="Joel Skousen">Joel Skousen</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Randall_Terry" title="Randall Terry">Randall Terry</a></dd></dl>
</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%;box-shadow: inset -5px 0 0 0 #50C878;"><a href="/info/en/?search=Legal_Marijuana_Now_Party" title="Legal Marijuana Now Party">Legal Marijuana Now Party</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em"></div><table class="nowraplinks navbox-subgroup" style="border-spacing:0"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" class="navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Minnesota_Legal_Marijuana_Now_presidential_primary" title="2024 Minnesota Legal Marijuana Now presidential primary">Primary</a></li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Candidates</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<dl><dt>Declared</dt>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Ed_Forchion" title="Ed Forchion">Ed Forchion</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Rudy_Reyes_(activist)" title="Rudy Reyes (activist)">Rudy Reyes</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Vermin_Supreme" title="Vermin Supreme">Vermin Supreme</a></dd></dl>
<dl><dt>Withdrawn</dt>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Krystal_Gabel" title="Krystal Gabel">Krystal Gabel</a></dd></dl>
</div></td></tr></tbody></table><div></div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%;box-shadow: inset -5px 0 0 0 red;"><a href="/info/en/?search=Party_for_Socialism_and_Liberation" title="Party for Socialism and Liberation">Party for Socialism & Liberation</a><br /><span style="color:#00FF00;">▌</span><a href="/info/en/?search=Peace_and_Freedom_Party" title="Peace and Freedom Party">PFP</a> · <span style="color:#DDDDBB;">▌</span><a href="/info/en/?search=Labor_Party_(United_States,_1996)" title="Labor Party (United States, 1996)">SC Workers</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><b>Nominee: <a href="/info/en/?search=Claudia_De_la_Cruz" title="Claudia De la Cruz">Claudia De la Cruz</a></b></li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%;box-shadow: inset -5px 0 0 0 #D30101;"><a href="/info/en/?search=Socialist_Equality_Party_(United_States)" title="Socialist Equality Party (United States)">Socialist Equality Party</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><b>Nominee: <a href="/info/en/?search=Joseph_Kishore" title="Joseph Kishore">Joseph Kishore</a></b></li>
<li><b>VP nominee: <a href="/info/en/?search=Jerry_White_(socialist)" title="Jerry White (socialist)">Jerry White</a></b></li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%;box-shadow: inset -5px 0 0 0 #DDDDBB;">Other independent candidates</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<dl><dt>Declared</dt>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Shiva_Ayyadurai" title="Shiva Ayyadurai">Shiva Ayyadurai</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Johnny_Buss" title="Johnny Buss">Johnny Buss</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Afroman" title="Afroman">Joseph "Afroman" Foreman</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Taylor_Marshall" title="Taylor Marshall">Taylor Marshall</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Robby_Wells" title="Robby Wells">Robby Wells</a></dd></dl>
<dl><dt>Expressed interest</dt>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Liz_Cheney" title="Liz Cheney">Liz Cheney</a></dd></dl>
<dl><dt>Withdrew</dt>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Kanye_West" title="Kanye West">Kanye West</a>
<dl><dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Kanye_West_2024_presidential_campaign" class="mw-redirect" title="Kanye West 2024 presidential campaign">campaign</a></dd>
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Views_of_Kanye_West" title="Views of Kanye West">positions</a></dd></dl></dd></dl>
</div></td></tr></tbody></table><div></div></td></tr></tbody></table></div>
<div class="navbox-styles"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1129693374"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1061467846"></div><div role="navigation" class="navbox" aria-labelledby="Donald_Trump" style="padding:3px"><table class="nowraplinks hlist mw-collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner" style="border-spacing:0;background:transparent;color:inherit"><tbody><tr><th scope="col" class="navbox-title" colspan="2"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1129693374"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1063604349"><div class="navbar plainlinks hlist navbar-mini"><ul><li class="nv-view"><a href="/info/en/?search=Template:Donald_Trump" title="Template:Donald Trump"><abbr title="View this template" style=";;background:none transparent;border:none;box-shadow:none;padding:0;">v</abbr></a></li><li class="nv-talk"><a href="/info/en/?search=Template_talk:Donald_Trump" title="Template talk:Donald Trump"><abbr title="Discuss this template" style=";;background:none transparent;border:none;box-shadow:none;padding:0;">t</abbr></a></li><li class="nv-edit"><a href="/info/en/?search=Special:EditPage/Template:Donald_Trump" title="Special:EditPage/Template:Donald Trump"><abbr title="Edit this template" style=";;background:none transparent;border:none;box-shadow:none;padding:0;">e</abbr></a></li></ul></div><div id="Donald_Trump" style="font-size:114%;margin:0 4em"><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump" title="Donald Trump">Donald Trump</a></div></th></tr><tr><td class="navbox-abovebelow" colspan="2"><div>
<ul><li><span class="nowrap"><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States" title="List of presidents of the United States">45th</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=President_of_the_United_States" title="President of the United States">President of the United States</a> (2017–2021)</span></li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%"><a href="/info/en/?search=Presidency_of_Donald_Trump" title="Presidency of Donald Trump">Presidency</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=2016_United_States_presidential_election" title="2016 United States presidential election">Election</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=International_reactions_to_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election" title="International reactions to the 2016 United States presidential election">Reactions</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Presidential_transition_of_Donald_Trump" title="Presidential transition of Donald Trump">Transition</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Inauguration_of_Donald_Trump" title="Inauguration of Donald Trump">Inauguration</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Timeline_of_the_Donald_Trump_presidency" title="Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency">Timeline</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=First_100_days_of_Donald_Trump%27s_presidency" title="First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency">first 100 days</a></li>
<li>2017
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Timeline_of_the_Donald_Trump_presidency_(2017_Q1)" title="Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2017 Q1)">Q1</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Timeline_of_the_Donald_Trump_presidency_(2017_Q2)" title="Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2017 Q2)">Q2</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Timeline_of_the_Donald_Trump_presidency_(2017_Q3)" title="Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2017 Q3)">Q3</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Timeline_of_the_Donald_Trump_presidency_(2017_Q4)" title="Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2017 Q4)">Q4</a></li></ul></li>
<li>2018
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Timeline_of_the_Donald_Trump_presidency_(2018_Q1)" title="Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2018 Q1)">Q1</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Timeline_of_the_Donald_Trump_presidency_(2018_Q2)" title="Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2018 Q2)">Q2</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Timeline_of_the_Donald_Trump_presidency_(2018_Q3)" title="Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2018 Q3)">Q3</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Timeline_of_the_Donald_Trump_presidency_(2018_Q4)" title="Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2018 Q4)">Q4</a></li></ul></li>
<li>2019
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Timeline_of_the_Donald_Trump_presidency_(2019_Q1)" title="Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2019 Q1)">Q1</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Timeline_of_the_Donald_Trump_presidency_(2019_Q2)" title="Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2019 Q2)">Q2</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Timeline_of_the_Donald_Trump_presidency_(2019_Q3)" title="Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2019 Q3)">Q3</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Timeline_of_the_Donald_Trump_presidency_(2019_Q4)" title="Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2019 Q4)">Q4</a></li></ul></li>
<li>2020–2021
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Timeline_of_the_Donald_Trump_presidency_(2020_Q1)" title="Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2020 Q1)">Q1</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Timeline_of_the_Donald_Trump_presidency_(2020_Q2)" title="Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2020 Q2)">Q2</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Timeline_of_the_Donald_Trump_presidency_(2020_Q3)" title="Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2020 Q3)">Q3</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Timeline_of_the_Donald_Trump_presidency_(2020_Q4%E2%80%93January_2021)" title="Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2020 Q4–January 2021)">Q4–January 2021</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_presidential_trips_made_by_Donald_Trump" title="List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump">domestic trips</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_presidential_trips_made_by_Donald_Trump_(2017)" title="List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2017)">2017</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_presidential_trips_made_by_Donald_Trump_(2018)" title="List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2018)">2018</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_presidential_trips_made_by_Donald_Trump_(2019)" title="List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2019)">2019</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_presidential_trips_made_by_Donald_Trump_(2020%E2%80%932021)" title="List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2020–2021)">2020–2021</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_international_presidential_trips_made_by_Donald_Trump" title="List of international presidential trips made by Donald Trump">international trips</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Opinion_polling_on_the_Donald_Trump_administration" title="Opinion polling on the Donald Trump administration">Polls</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=2017_opinion_polling_on_the_Donald_Trump_administration" title="2017 opinion polling on the Donald Trump administration">2017</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2018_opinion_polling_on_the_Donald_Trump_administration" title="2018 opinion polling on the Donald Trump administration">2018</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2019_opinion_polling_on_the_Donald_Trump_administration" title="2019 opinion polling on the Donald Trump administration">2019</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Cabinet_of_Donald_Trump" title="Cabinet of Donald Trump">Cabinet</a>
<ul><li>formation</li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_Donald_Trump_nominees_who_have_withdrawn" title="List of Donald Trump nominees who have withdrawn">withdrawn</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Political_appointments_by_Donald_Trump" title="Political appointments by Donald Trump">Appointments</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_ambassadors_appointed_by_Donald_Trump" title="List of ambassadors appointed by Donald Trump">ambassadors</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_economic_advisors_to_Donald_Trump" title="List of economic advisors to Donald Trump">economic advisors</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump" title="List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump">Judicial appointments</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_Supreme_Court_candidates" title="Donald Trump Supreme Court candidates">Supreme Court candidates</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Neil_Gorsuch_Supreme_Court_nomination" title="Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination">Neil Gorsuch</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Brett_Kavanaugh_Supreme_Court_nomination" title="Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination">Brett Kavanaugh</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Amy_Coney_Barrett_Supreme_Court_nomination" title="Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination">Amy Coney Barrett</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_judicial_appointment_controversies" title="Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies">controversies</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_United_States_attorneys_appointed_by_Donald_Trump" title="List of United States attorneys appointed by Donald Trump">U.S. attorneys</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_short-tenure_Donald_Trump_political_appointments" title="List of short-tenure Donald Trump political appointments">short tenures</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_Trump_administration_dismissals_and_resignations" title="List of Trump administration dismissals and resignations">Dismissals</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=2017_dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys" title="2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys">U.S. attorneys</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2020_dismissal_of_inspectors_general" title="2020 dismissal of inspectors general">inspectors general</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Dismissal_of_James_Comey" title="Dismissal of James Comey">James Comey</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_people_granted_executive_clemency_by_Donald_Trump" title="List of people granted executive clemency by Donald Trump">Pardons and commutations</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Pardon_of_Joe_Arpaio" title="Pardon of Joe Arpaio">Joe Arpaio</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_executive_actions_by_Donald_Trump" title="List of executive actions by Donald Trump">Executive actions</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_proclamations_by_Donald_Trump" title="List of proclamations by Donald Trump">proclamations</a></li></ul></li>
<li>Government shutdowns
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=January_2018_United_States_federal_government_shutdown" title="January 2018 United States federal government shutdown">January 2018</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2018%E2%80%932019_United_States_federal_government_shutdown" title="2018–2019 United States federal government shutdown">2018–2019</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_wall" title="Trump wall">Trump wall</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=First_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump" title="First impeachment of Donald Trump">First impeachment</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=First_impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump" title="First impeachment trial of Donald Trump">first trial</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=U.S._federal_government_response_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Trump_administration_(2020)" title="U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic">COVID-19 pandemic</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Presidential_transition_of_Joe_Biden" title="Presidential transition of Joe Biden">Presidential transition of Joe Biden</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump%E2%80%93Raffensperger_phone_call" title="Trump–Raffensperger phone call">Trump–Raffensperger phone call</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2020%E2%80%9321_United_States_election_protests" title="2020–21 United States election protests">2020–21 United States election protests</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack" title="January 6 United States Capitol attack">January 6 United States Capitol attack</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Second_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump" title="Second impeachment of Donald Trump">Second impeachment</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Second_impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump" title="Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump">second trial</a></li></ul></li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Life and<br />politics</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Business_career_of_Donald_Trump" title="Business career of Donald Trump">Business career</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Personal_and_business_legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump" title="Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump">legal affairs</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Wealth_of_Donald_Trump" title="Wealth of Donald Trump">wealth</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Tax_returns_of_Donald_Trump" title="Tax returns of Donald Trump">tax returns</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Media_career_of_Donald_Trump" title="Media career of Donald Trump">Media career</a>
<ul><li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=The_Apprentice_(American_TV_series)" title="The Apprentice (American TV series)">The Apprentice</a></i></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_and_American_football" title="Donald Trump and American football">American football</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_and_golf" title="Donald Trump and golf">Golf</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_awards_and_honors_received_by_Donald_Trump" title="List of awards and honors received by Donald Trump">Honors and awards</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump" title="Political positions of Donald Trump">Political positions</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trumpism" title="Trumpism">Trumpism</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Rhetoric_of_Donald_Trump" title="Rhetoric of Donald Trump">Rhetoric</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Economic_policy_of_the_Donald_Trump_administration" title="Economic policy of the Donald Trump administration">Economy</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_tariffs" title="Trump tariffs">tariffs</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Environmental_policy_of_the_Donald_Trump_administration" title="Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration">Environment</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Paris_Agreement" title="United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement">Paris withdrawal</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=America%27s_Water_Infrastructure_Act_of_2018" title="America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018">America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Clean_Water_Act" title="Clean Water Act">Clean Water Act</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Safe_Drinking_Water_Act" title="Safe Drinking Water Act">Safe Drinking Water Act</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Foreign_policy_of_the_Donald_Trump_administration" title="Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration">Foreign policy</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Foreign_policy_of_Donald_Trump_during_the_2016_presidential_election" title="Foreign policy of Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election">positions as candidate</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=America_First_(policy)" title="America First (policy)">America First</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=China%E2%80%93United_States_trade_war" title="China–United States trade war">China–United States trade war</a></li>
<li>Israel–Palestine
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_recognition_of_Jerusalem_as_capital_of_Israel" title="United States recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel">Jerusalem recognition</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_recognition_of_the_Golan_Heights_as_part_of_Israel" title="United States recognition of the Golan Heights as part of Israel">Golan Heights recognition</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_peace_plan" title="Trump peace plan">Peace plan</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Abraham_Accords" title="Abraham Accords">Abraham Accords</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Israel%E2%80%93United_Arab_Emirates_normalization_agreement" title="Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement">UAE</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Bahrain%E2%80%93Israel_normalization_agreement" title="Bahrain–Israel normalization agreement">Bahrain</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Israel%E2%80%93Sudan_normalization_agreement" title="Israel–Sudan normalization agreement">Sudan</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Israel%E2%80%93Morocco_normalization_agreement" title="Israel–Morocco normalization agreement">Morocco</a></li></ul></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Kosovo_and_Serbia_economic_normalization_agreements" title="Kosovo and Serbia economic normalization agreements">Kosovo–Serbia agreement</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action" title="United States withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action">Iran nuclear-deal withdrawal</a></li>
<li>Russia summit
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=2018_Russia%E2%80%93United_States_summit" title="2018 Russia–United States summit">Helsinki</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2018%E2%80%9319_Korean_peace_process" title="2018–19 Korean peace process">North Korea summits</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=2018_North_Korea%E2%80%93United_States_Singapore_Summit" title="2018 North Korea–United States Singapore Summit">Singapore</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2019_North_Korea%E2%80%93United_States_Hanoi_Summit" title="2019 North Korea–United States Hanoi Summit">Hanoi</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2019_Koreas%E2%80%93United_States_DMZ_Summit" title="2019 Koreas–United States DMZ Summit">DMZ</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Death_of_Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi" title="Death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi">Death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Assassination_of_Qasem_Soleimani" title="Assassination of Qasem Soleimani">Assassination of Qasem Soleimani</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Immigration_policy_of_Donald_Trump" title="Immigration policy of Donald Trump">Immigration</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_administration_family_separation_policy" title="Trump administration family separation policy">family separation</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_travel_ban" title="Trump travel ban">travel ban</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_wall" title="Trump wall">wall</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Social_policy_of_Donald_Trump" title="Social policy of Donald Trump">Social issues</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Cannabis_policy_of_the_Donald_Trump_administration" title="Cannabis policy of the Donald Trump administration">cannabis</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Space_policy_of_the_Donald_Trump_administration" title="Space policy of the Donald Trump administration">Space policy</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Protests_against_Donald_Trump" title="Protests against Donald Trump">Protests</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Timeline_of_protests_against_Donald_Trump" title="Timeline of protests against Donald Trump">timeline</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2016_Donald_Trump_Las_Vegas_rally_incident" title="2016 Donald Trump Las Vegas rally incident">Las Vegas rally incident</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump" title="Efforts to impeach Donald Trump">efforts to impeach</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump" title="Racial views of Donald Trump">Racial views</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=False_or_misleading_statements_by_Donald_Trump" title="False or misleading statements by Donald Trump">False or misleading statements</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_photo_op_at_St._John%27s_Church" title="Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church">Photo op at St. John's Church</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_administration_political_interference_with_science_agencies" title="Trump administration political interference with science agencies">Political interference with science agencies</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=National_Garden_of_American_Heroes" title="National Garden of American Heroes">National Garden of American Heroes</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_endorsements_by_Donald_Trump" title="List of endorsements by Donald Trump">Endorsements</a></li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%"><a href="/info/en/?search=Bibliography_of_Donald_Trump" title="Bibliography of Donald Trump">Books</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump:_The_Art_of_the_Deal" title="Trump: The Art of the Deal">Trump: The Art of the Deal</a></i> (1987)</li>
<li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump:_Surviving_at_the_Top" title="Trump: Surviving at the Top">Trump: Surviving at the Top</a></i> (1990)</li>
<li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump:_The_Art_of_the_Comeback" title="Trump: The Art of the Comeback">Trump: The Art of the Comeback</a></i> (1997)</li>
<li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=The_America_We_Deserve" title="The America We Deserve">The America We Deserve</a></i> (2000)</li>
<li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump:_How_to_Get_Rich" title="Trump: How to Get Rich">Trump: How to Get Rich</a></i> (2004)</li>
<li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=The_Way_to_the_Top" title="The Way to the Top">The Way to the Top</a></i> (2004)</li>
<li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_101" title="Trump 101">Trump 101</a></i> (2006)</li>
<li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Why_We_Want_You_to_Be_Rich" title="Why We Want You to Be Rich">Why We Want You to Be Rich</a></i> (2006)</li>
<li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Think_Big_and_Kick_Ass" title="Think Big and Kick Ass">Think Big and Kick Ass</a></i> (2007)</li>
<li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Time_to_Get_Tough" title="Time to Get Tough">Time to Get Tough</a></i> (2011)</li>
<li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Midas_Touch_(book)" title="Midas Touch (book)">Midas Touch</a></i> (2011)</li>
<li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Crippled_America" title="Crippled America">Crippled America</a></i> (2015)</li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Speeches</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Inauguration_of_Donald_Trump#Inaugural_address" title="Inauguration of Donald Trump">Inaugural address</a> (2017)</li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2017_Donald_Trump_speech_to_a_joint_session_of_Congress" title="2017 Donald Trump speech to a joint session of Congress">Joint session of Congress</a> (2017)</li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2017_Riyadh_summit" title="2017 Riyadh summit">Riyadh summit</a> (2017)</li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump%27s_speech_in_Warsaw,_Poland" title="Donald Trump's speech in Warsaw, Poland">Warsaw speech</a> (2017)</li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2017_National_Scout_Jamboree" title="2017 National Scout Jamboree">National Scout Jamboree</a> (2017)</li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=State_of_the_Union" title="State of the Union">State of the Union Address</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=2018_State_of_the_Union_Address" title="2018 State of the Union Address">2018</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2019_State_of_the_Union_Address" title="2019 State of the Union Address">2019</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2020_State_of_the_Union_Address" title="2020 State of the Union Address">2020</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Address_to_the_Nation" class="mw-redirect" title="Address to the Nation">Oval Office address</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=2019_Oval_Office_address" title="2019 Oval Office address">2019</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2020_Oval_Office_address" title="2020 Oval Office address">2020</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump%27s_farewell_address" title="Donald Trump's farewell address">Farewell address</a> (2021)</li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2021_Conservative_Political_Action_Conference" title="2021 Conservative Political Action Conference">CPAC</a> (2021)</li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Campaigns</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_2000_presidential_campaign" title="Donald Trump 2000 presidential campaign">2000 presidential campaign</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign" title="Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign">2016 presidential campaign</a>
<ul><li>"<a href="/info/en/?search=Make_America_Great_Again" title="Make America Great Again">Make America Great Again</a>"</li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_rallies_for_the_2016_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign" title="List of rallies for the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign">rallies</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2016_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries" title="2016 Republican Party presidential primaries">2016 Republican primaries</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign_primary_endorsements" title="List of Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign primary endorsements">endorsements</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2016_Republican_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums" title="2016 Republican Party presidential debates and forums">debates</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2016_Republican_Party_vice_presidential_candidate_selection" title="2016 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection">running mate selection</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2016_Republican_National_Convention" title="2016 Republican National Convention">convention</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2016_United_States_presidential_election" title="2016 United States presidential election">2016 general election</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign_endorsements" title="List of Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign endorsements">endorsements</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2016_United_States_presidential_debates" title="2016 United States presidential debates">debates</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Never_Trump_movement" title="Never Trump movement">Never Trump movement</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Republican_Voters_Against_Trump" class="mw-redirect" title="Republican Voters Against Trump">Republican opposition</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign" title="List of Republicans who opposed the Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign">2016</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Mitt_Romney%27s_2016_anti-Trump_speech" title="Mitt Romney's 2016 anti-Trump speech">Mitt Romney speech</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_Donald_Trump_2020_presidential_campaign" title="List of Republicans who opposed the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign">2020</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_Republicans_who_oppose_the_Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign" title="List of Republicans who oppose the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign">2024</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations" title="Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations">Sexual misconduct allegations</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_Access_Hollywood_tape" title="Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape"><i>Access Hollywood</i> recording</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_2020_presidential_campaign" title="Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign">2020 presidential campaign</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_post%E2%80%932016_election_Donald_Trump_rallies#2020_presidential_campaign" title="List of post–2016 election Donald Trump rallies">rallies</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2020_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries" title="2020 Republican Party presidential primaries">2020 Republican primaries</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=2020_Republican_National_Convention" title="2020 Republican National Convention">convention</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2020_United_States_presidential_election" title="2020 United States presidential election">2020 general election</a>
<ul><li>endorsements
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_Donald_Trump_2020_presidential_campaign_political_endorsements" title="List of Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign political endorsements">political</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_Donald_Trump_2020_presidential_campaign_non-political_endorsements" title="List of Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign non-political endorsements">non-political</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2020_United_States_presidential_debates" title="2020 United States presidential debates">debates</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Republican_reactions_to_Donald_Trump%27s_claims_of_2020_election_fraud" title="Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud">Republican reactions to Trump's election fraud claims</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign" title="Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign">2024 presidential campaign</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_post%E2%80%932016_election_Donald_Trump_rallies#2024_presidential_campaign" title="List of post–2016 election Donald Trump rallies">rallies</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries" title="2024 Republican Party presidential primaries">2024 Republican primaries</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign_primary_endorsements" title="List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign primary endorsements">endorsements</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2024_Republican_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums" title="2024 Republican Party presidential debates and forums">debates</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=2024_United_States_presidential_election" title="2024 United States presidential election">2024 general election</a>
<ul><li><a class="mw-selflink selflink">eligibility</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign_endorsements" title="List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign endorsements">endorsements</a></li></ul></li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%"><a href="/info/en/?search=Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump_as_president" title="Legal affairs of Donald Trump as president">Legal affairs</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Pre-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election" title="Pre-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election">Pre-2020 election</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election" title="Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election">Post-election</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election_from_Arizona" title="Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election from Arizona">Arizona</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election_from_Georgia" title="Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election from Georgia">Georgia</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election_from_Michigan" title="Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election from Michigan">Michigan</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election_from_Nevada" title="Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election from Nevada">Nevada</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election_from_Pennsylvania" title="Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election from Pennsylvania">Pennsylvania</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election_from_Wisconsin" title="Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election from Wisconsin">Wisconsin</a></li>
<li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Texas_v._Pennsylvania" title="Texas v. Pennsylvania">Texas v. Pennsylvania</a></i></li></ul></li>
<li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump" title="E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump">Carroll v. Trump</a></i></li>
<li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_v._United_States_(2022)" title="Trump v. United States (2022)">Trump v. United States (2022)</a></i></li>
<li>State prosecution
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Georgia_election_racketeering_prosecution" title="Georgia election racketeering prosecution">Georgia</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York" title="Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York">New York</a></li></ul></li>
<li>Federal prosecution
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_(classified_documents_case)" title="Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (classified documents case)">classified documents case</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_(election_obstruction_case)" title="Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)">election obstruction case</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Mug_shot_of_Donald_Trump" title="Mug shot of Donald Trump">Trump mug shot</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_v._United_States_(2024)" title="Trump v. United States (2024)"><i>Trump v. United States</i> (2024)</a></li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Investigations</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Crossfire_Hurricane_(FBI_investigation)" title="Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation)">Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation)</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Durham_special_counsel_investigation" title="Durham special counsel investigation">Durham special counsel investigation</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=FBI_investigation_into_Donald_Trump%27s_handling_of_government_documents" title="FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents">FBI investigation into handling of government documents</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=FBI_search_of_Mar-a-Lago" title="FBI search of Mar-a-Lago">FBI search of Mar-a-Lago</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=United_States_Justice_Department_investigation_into_attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_presidential_election" title="United States Justice Department investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election">Investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Mueller_special_counsel_investigation" title="Mueller special counsel investigation">Mueller special counsel investigation</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=New_York_investigations_of_The_Trump_Organization" title="New York investigations of The Trump Organization">New York investigations of The Trump Organization</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=New_York_civil_investigation_of_The_Trump_Organization" class="mw-redirect" title="New York civil investigation of The Trump Organization">civil</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=New_York_criminal_investigation_of_The_Trump_Organization" title="New York criminal investigation of The Trump Organization">criminal</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Russia_investigation_origins_counter-narrative" title="Russia investigation origins counter-narrative">Russia investigation origins counter-narrative</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Smith_special_counsel_investigation" title="Smith special counsel investigation">Smith special counsel investigation</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Timeline_of_investigations_into_Donald_Trump_and_Russia" title="Timeline of investigations into Donald Trump and Russia">Timeline of investigations into Donald Trump and Russia</a></li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Related</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Family_of_Donald_Trump" title="Family of Donald Trump">Family</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_J._Trump_Foundation" title="Donald J. Trump Foundation">Foundation</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_in_popular_culture" title="Donald Trump in popular culture">In popular culture</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_filmography" title="Donald Trump filmography">filmography</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_Trump_in_music" title="Donald Trump in music">in music</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Saturday_Night_Live_parodies_of_Donald_Trump" title="Saturday Night Live parodies of Donald Trump"><i>SNL</i> parodies</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Residences_of_Donald_Trump" title="Residences of Donald Trump">Residences</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=85-15_Wareham_Place" title="85-15 Wareham Place">85-15 Wareham Place</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_Tower" title="Trump Tower">Trump Tower</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_Tower_penthouse_of_Donald_Trump" title="Trump Tower penthouse of Donald Trump">Trump Tower penthouse of Donald Trump</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_National_Golf_Club_Bedminster" title="Trump National Golf Club Bedminster">Bedminster</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Mar-a-Lago" title="Mar-a-Lago">Mar-a-Lago</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=FBI_search_of_Mar-a-Lago" title="FBI search of Mar-a-Lago">FBI search</a></li></ul></li></ul></li>
<li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=The_Visionary" title="The Visionary">The Visionary</a></i></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Social_media_use_by_Donald_Trump" title="Social media use by Donald Trump">On social media</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_Tower_wiretapping_allegations" title="Trump Tower wiretapping allegations">wiretapping allegations</a></li>
<li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Real_News_Update" title="Real News Update">Real News Update</a></i></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Covfefe" title="Covfefe">Covfefe</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_Media_%26_Technology_Group" title="Trump Media & Technology Group">Trump Media & Technology Group</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Donald_J._Trump_State_Park" title="Donald J. Trump State Park">Donald J. Trump State Park</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=List_of_nicknames_used_by_Donald_Trump" title="List of nicknames used by Donald Trump">Nicknames used</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_Force_One" title="Trump Force One">Trump Force One</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump_derangement_syndrome" title="Trump derangement syndrome">Trump derangement syndrome</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Fort_Trump" title="Fort Trump">Fort Trump</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=White_House_COVID-19_outbreak" title="White House COVID-19 outbreak">White House COVID-19 outbreak</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trumpism" title="Trumpism">Trumpism</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Women_for_Trump" title="Women for Trump">Women for Trump</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Blacks_for_Trump" class="mw-redirect" title="Blacks for Trump">Blacks for Trump</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Black_Voices_for_Trump" title="Black Voices for Trump">Black Voices for Trump</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Gays_for_Trump" title="Gays for Trump">Gays for Trump</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Category:Trump_administration_controversies" title="Category:Trump administration controversies">Controversies</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Pseudonyms_of_Donald_Trump" title="Pseudonyms of Donald Trump">pseudonyms</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Stormy_Daniels%E2%80%93Donald_Trump_scandal" title="Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal">Stormy Daniels scandal</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_scandal" title="Trump–Ukraine scandal">Trump–Ukraine scandal</a></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election" title="Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election">Attempts to overturn the 2020 election</a>
<ul><li><a href="/info/en/?search=Stop_the_Steal" class="mw-redirect" title="Stop the Steal">Stop the Steal</a></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack" title="January 6 United States Capitol attack">January 6 United States Capitol attack</a>
<ul><li>"<a href="/info/en/?search=Justice_for_All_(song)" title="Justice for All (song)">Justice for All</a>"</li>
<li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Day_of_Rage:_How_Trump_Supporters_Took_the_U.S._Capitol" title="Day of Rage: How Trump Supporters Took the U.S. Capitol">Day of Rage: How Trump Supporters Took the U.S. Capitol</a></i></li>
<li><i><a href="/info/en/?search=Four_Hours_at_the_Capitol" title="Four Hours at the Capitol">Four Hours at the Capitol</a></i></li></ul></li></ul></li>
<li><a href="/info/en/?search=Wikipedia_coverage_of_Donald_Trump" title="Wikipedia coverage of Donald Trump">Wikipedia coverage</a></li></ul>
</div></td></tr><tr><td class="navbox-abovebelow" colspan="2"><div>
<ul><li><b><a href="/info/en/?search=Barack_Obama" title="Barack Obama">← Barack Obama</a></b></li>
<li><b><a href="/info/en/?search=Joe_Biden" title="Joe Biden">Joe Biden →</a></b></li></ul>
<hr />
<ul><li><span class="noviewer" typeof="mw:File"><span title="Category"><img alt="" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/96/Symbol_category_class.svg/16px-Symbol_category_class.svg.png" decoding="async" width="16" height="16" class="mw-file-element" srcset="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/96/Symbol_category_class.svg/23px-Symbol_category_class.svg.png 1.5x, //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/96/Symbol_category_class.svg/31px-Symbol_category_class.svg.png 2x" data-file-width="180" data-file-height="185" /></span></span> <a href="/info/en/?search=Category:Donald_Trump" title="Category:Donald Trump">Category</a></li></ul>
</div></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div>' |