In connection with his inauguration and second presidential term, Donald Trump is poised to swear to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” There wasn’t as much reason to focus on that specific wording when he took office for the first round. But this time it’s more notable, given that Trump subsequently argued that he never swore to “support” the Constitution.
His lawyers made the argument during litigation over his eligibility for office in the 2024 election, in the face of post-Jan. 6 disqualification efforts invoking the 14th Amendment’s insurrectionist ban. The amendment disqualifies oath-breaking insurrectionists who previously swore to “support the Constitution of the United States.”
Trump’s lawyers wrote to the Supreme Court that the word “support” is “nowhere to be found” in the presidential oath.
Among Trump’s legal arguments was that the ban doesn’t apply to presidents, citing the semantic distinction in the oath. His lawyers wrote to the Supreme Court that the word “support” is “nowhere to be found” in the presidential oath.
To be sure, while the Supreme Court kept Trump on the ballot, the ruling wasn’t based on that lawyerly distinction. At any rate, the justices did keep him on the ballot, he won, and now he’ll be president again. For that, he has the Roberts Court to thank, in part — not only for his eligibility, but for granting him broad criminal immunity that both helped him avoid a trial in the federal election interference case and gave him a roadmap for avoiding criminal consequences this time.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in Donald Trump’s legal cases.
This post was originally published on here
