The U.S. Supreme Court may encounter challenging legal maneuvering as it grapples with the possibility of returning Donald Trump to the ballot in Colorado, according to a legal analyst. The recent ruling by the state's Supreme Court, which deemed Trump ineligible to appear on the ballots due to his actions surrounding the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, is backed by an "ironclad" originalist argument based on the 14th Amendment.

The petitioners who successfully argued their case against Trump's candidacy cited Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, designed to prevent former Confederates from holding office after the Civil War. This provision prohibits individuals who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and engage in insurrection from holding office again. The ruling represents the first successful challenge to Trump's eligibility in Colorado.

The decision is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where legal experts anticipate it might be overturned due to the conservative majority on the bench. However, experts argue that the court would face difficulties in reversing the Colorado ruling. The state's decision rests on an originalist and textualist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, approaches that the court has favored in recent years.

Sidney Blumenthal, a political strategist and former aide to President Bill Clinton, outlined previous Supreme Court rulings reliant on originalist and textualist arguments in an article for The Guardian. Blumenthal suggested that overturning the Colorado ruling to reinstate Trump on the ballot would require discarding these constitutional principles, mentioning cases like Roe v. Wade, and criticized the use of originalism and textualism to undermine various rights and regulations.

Blumenthal stated, "The Colorado Supreme Court's finding, based on clear and convincing evidence, concludes that Trump engaged in insurrection on January 6. Therefore, on originalist and textual as well as historical grounds, the case should be straightforward. The majority of the court now faces a dilemma: either uphold Trump's disqualification or compromise the very doctrine upon which their conservative jurisprudence rests."

As the legal battle over Trump's eligibility unfolds, pundits and legal experts await the Supreme Court's decision on whether to hear the appeal and reexamine the originalist and textualist foundations it has relied upon in recent years. The outcome of this case may have significant implications not only for Trump's candidacy but also for the future interpretation of the Constitution in high-profile legal disputes.