Another state says Trump can’t run, but SCOTUS could erase it all

Illinois just joined Colorado and Maine as states that have decided to keep Donald Trump off their presidential ballots. It’s tempting to dismiss this latest development’s significance, given that the Supreme Court has indicated that it intends to keep the former president on the ballot nationwide. But this latest action reinforces some important points.

First, it reminds us that the legal decisions that have involved actually grappling with the issue — as opposed to the challenges rejected on procedural grounds — have all gone against Trump. On Wednesday, the Illinois judge took note of the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling and found its rationale in disqualifying Trump “compelling.” As in Colorado and Maine, the Illinois ruling is on hold pending the former president’s state court appeal and the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court’s forthcoming ruling in the Colorado case, Trump v. Anderson, will upend the rulings against him.

That brings us to another point: that pending Supreme Court ruling itself. The justices expedited the review (more quickly than they did with Trump’s immunity bid, by the way) and heard arguments on Feb. 8. The high court isn’t on a firm deadline to issue a ruling, but a decision by Super Tuesday next week seemed like a possibility when the case was argued. Yet, we haven’t heard a word about it from the high court since the arguments, and it’s unclear when we will.

It’s true that, at the hearing, the justices broadly expressed discomfort in applying the 14th Amendment’s insurrectionist ban to the former president. And if the state rulings against him are paused pending high court action and the justices are going to side with him anyway, then perhaps they see less of a reason to rush.

But what if the court hasn’t ruled yet because the justices are having difficulty laundering their discomfort into a coherent legal opinion? The Illinois decision is the latest example of the weight of legal authority the justices will be going against if, indeed, they are straining for a way to let the insurrectionist candidate take office again.

Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for weekly updates on the top legal stories, including news from the Supreme Court, the Donald Trump cases and more.