A pair of conservative legal scholars argue in a newly released paper that, under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, former President Donald Trump is disqualified to hold office again, echoing a case long made by progressive experts and watchdogs.
In an in-depth analysis of Section 3, William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas contend that the clause “remains of direct and dramatic relevance today” even though it arose from “a particular historical situation and acute problem arising in the aftermath of the Civil War” — namely, the decision by Southern states to send supporters of secession and rebellion to Congress.
“Fast-forward a century and a half. The events surrounding efforts to overturn the result of the presidential election of 2020 have sparked renewed scholarly, judicial, and political interest in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment,” noted Baude and Paulsen, both active members of the right-wing Federalist Society. “Several of the people involved in these events — most notably the defeated president, Donald Trump — had previously taken oaths to support the Constitution.”
“If they engaged in or gave aid and comfort to an insurrection against the constitutional government,” they added, “Section 3 would appear to bar them from holding office again.”
Trump, the frontrunner in the 2024 Republican presidential primary, is currently facing a number of felony charges stemming from his role in attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election and inciting the January 6, 2021 insurrection, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and “conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one’s vote counted.”
Special Counsel Jack Smith, who laid out the charges last week in a 45-page indictment, has proposed a January 2, 2024 trial date.
But legal experts and historians have argued that Trump is disqualified for office under Section 3 whether or not he is convicted.
The clause states that “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.”
Only a two-thirds vote by both chambers of Congress can lift the disqualification.
In their new paper, Baude and Paulsen wrote that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — known as the insurrection clause — is “self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress.”
“It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications,” Baude and Paulsen argued, rejecting the notion that the First Amendment shields those who have engaged in or incited insurrection from disqualification under Section 3.
The clause, the pair added, “covers a broad range of former offices, including the presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.”
John Bonifaz, co-founder and president of Free Speech for People, called the new paper a “must-read for every secretary of state” and “chief election official in the country.”
“As this article makes clear, they must follow the mandate of 14.3 [and] bar Trump from the ballot,” Bonifaz wrote. “If they do not, we will sue.”
Free Speech for People is one of several advocacy groups preparing to take legal action if Trump is not disqualified.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington argued in a report that “overwhelming evidence establishes that President Trump was the central cause of and a participant in the insurrection. Because of that, Trump is disqualified from holding any public office, including the office of the president, under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Last September, a New Mexico judge ordered the removal of a county commissioner who took part in the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The decision marked the first time since 1869 that a court disqualified a public official under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

In an interview with The New York Times on Thursday, Paulsen suggested the new paper could bolster “a lawsuit presenting a vital constitutional issue that potentially the Supreme Court would want to hear and decide.”
Baude, the paper’s other co-author, summarized the pair’s conclusion to the Times: “Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on January 6.”
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.