Section 3 of the 14th Amendment prevents anyone who has taken an oath to the country and then rebelled to hold office again. The provision was used in the post-Civil War Reconstruction era to prevent Confederate officers from taking office again. It has been revived in the wake of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. In 2022, a New Mexico county commissioner was removed from office for engaging in an insurrection.

“I’m hoping that they once again look at the colloquial meaning of the terms and amendment and understand how the people who wrote it had intended it to apply,” Ghosh said. “Under that approach, it does apply to President Trump because if it could apply to a state governor, it should apply to the president as well. But in any case, it’s an interesting area where these self-professed originalists can really show their commitment to that methodology.”

Any decision around one of the most polarizing figures in American politics is likely to leave the Supreme Court at odds with half the country. Trump’s cases arrive at the court at a fraught time in its history. Public opinion of the court hit a new low after the court overturned Roe v. Wade. Since then, some justices have been trying to turn down the political temperature at the court. Trump will not be helpful in those endeavors.

“It’s a no-win situation for the Supreme Court,” Segall said.

While the constitutional issues presented by the two cases can only definitively be answered by the court, the justices still maintain broad discretion over their own docket.

“The court is going to view this as a package of cases not isolated, and they’re going to do what they think is politically best, all things considered given the package of cases,” Segall said.

There are some off-ramps the justices could take to avoid jumping into the 14th Amendment case. Recently, the high court has avoided ruling on election issues too close to election days using the Purcell principle, named after a 2006 case from the court’s emergency docket.

Colorado’s ruling is paused until Jan. 4, 2024. The next day is the state’s deadline to ink its primary ballot. Even if the court decided the case quickly, it’s nearly impossible for them to meet that deadline. The result will likely allow Trump to be placed on the primary ballot, shifting the consequences of the court’s ruling toward the general election. It’s not clear what would happen if Trump won the Republican primary but was not allowed to be listed on the general election ballot.

The justices could also cite the political question doctrine, which limits the court’s ability to hear political questions even if the case before the justices presents constitutional questions that are ripe for the court’s review.

Congress could also step in and take the issue off the justices’ plate. Section 3 has an added provision that allows lawmakers to overrule a candidate’s disqualification with a two-thirds vote in each house.

“I think they should take this out of the hands of the judiciary, and I think that because the issues involving the insurrection piece aren’t crystal clear,” Segall said. “It’s very reasonable to say he engaged in insurrection. It’s reasonable to say he did not — at least on January 6. Anyone who says it’s crystal clear is lying. Absent that kind of clarity, 70 million Americans should get to vote for who they want.”

The safety of judges and justices is also top of mind for the court as threats have escalated in the last few years. The Colorado Supreme Court received an influx of threats after removing Trump from the state’s ballot. While this factor will likely not sway the court’s decision, it’s a reason the court could want Congress to decide a political issue like Trump’s disqualification instead.