WASHINGTON — In December 1868, in a packed courtroom in Richmond, Virginia, Chief Justice Salmon Chase made a surprising decision regarding the defeated rebel president, Jefferson Davis. Little did anyone know at the time that Chase’s decision, along with another one he made the following year, would resurface years later in the ongoing dispute over former President Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for office again.
Chase’s rulings, which emerged from lower court cases, are now being brought into the spotlight as the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in Trump’s case. The legal issue at hand revolves around Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which aimed to prevent former Confederate officials from holding office after the Civil War.
The relevance of Chase’s historical rulings lies in the argument about how constitutional provisions were understood at the time they were written. As an anti-slavery Republican and former governor of Ohio, Chase was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Abraham Lincoln in 1864. His rulings are believed to have been influenced by political considerations, as he himself had ambitions to become president.
One of the cases that highlights Chase’s ambiguous stance is the Davis case, where he seemed to adopt an argument by Davis’ lawyers that Section 3 was a form of punishment, thereby barring any criminal prosecution. Interestingly, the following year, Chase took the opposite approach in a case involving a Black criminal defendant, Caesar Griffin, ruling that “legislation by Congress is necessary” for someone to be disqualified under the 14th Amendment.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in Trump’s case, Chase’s historical rulings are cited in briefs by both sides. Trump’s lawyers argue that Chase’s ruling in the Griffin case confirms “congressional enforcement legislation as the exclusive means for enforcing Section 3.” On the other hand, the plaintiffs argue that Chase’s opinion is “non-binding” and “does not credibly support the claim that Section 3 is unenforceable here.”
It’s clear that Chase’s historical rulings continue to spark debate and uncertainty as the legal battle over Trump’s eligibility to run for office persists. The significance and implications of his decisions from over a century ago are now being closely examined by legal experts, as the Supreme Court prepares to weigh in on a case that could have far-reaching consequences.