In a friend-of-the-court brief filed on Monday, J. Michael Luttig, a former conservative federal appellate judge, has urged the Supreme Court to bar Donald Trump from the ballot, arguing that his effort to cling to power after the 2020 election loss constituted a broader act than South Carolina's secession that triggered the Civil War.

Luttig stated that "Mr. Trump tried to prevent the newly-elected President Biden from governing anywhere in the United States. The South Carolina secession prevented the newly-elected President Lincoln from governing only in that State." He went on to assert that Trump's actions amounted to an armed insurrection against the Constitution's mandate for the peaceful transfer of executive power.

Citing Section 3 of the Constitution, Luttig claims that Trump disqualified himself by inciting the insurrection. This is a position he has held for some time, making him one of the prominent conservatives who argue against Trump's eligibility to hold office.

Luttig played a significant role in the 2020 election certification battle by providing legal arguments through a series of tweets to support then-Vice President Mike Pence in defying Trump's attempts to overturn the election results.

The US Supreme Court has agreed to review the decision made by the Colorado Supreme Court that removed Trump from the state's ballot. The state court ruled that Trump's conduct on January 6, 2021, falls under the 14th Amendment's ban on insurrectionists holding office, and thus he is constitutionally ineligible to run in 2024. The oral arguments in this case are set to take place on February 8.

Luttig, along with other notable lawyers including conservative attorney George Conway, submitted the friend-of-the-court brief, calling on the Supreme Court to interpret the issue through textualist lenses. They emphasized that Section 3, rooted in the Civil War, must be accorded its fair meaning, rejecting Trump's argument for a narrow construction.

The brief also counteracts Trump's claim that enforcement of the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist ban lies solely with Congress after a candidate is elected. Luttig and his fellow lawyers contend that the courts have the authority to enforce this provision. They argue that Trump's position would deprive voters of making informed decisions and potentially lead to chaos as courts litigate the eligibility of a newly-inaugurated President.

The upcoming Supreme Court hearing will deliberate on this crucial issue, assessing the legality of Trump's possible bid for office in the future. The implications of this decision will reverberate throughout the political landscape as the nation grapples with questions of accountability and the preservation of democratic norms.