The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Trump v. Anderson on Thursday, a case that challenges former President Donald Trump's ability to appear on the ballot in Colorado. The case was brought under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars former officeholders who have "engaged in insurrection" from returning to power. The plaintiffs argue that Trump's participation in the January 6th attack on the Capitol makes him subject to disqualification under the amendment.

During the oral arguments, a discomfiting and unusual threat emerged from some of the justices, as discussed by Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern on the podcast "Amicus." Lithwick highlighted a menacing tone in the arguments, referring to a subtle threat that emerged from certain justices, suggesting that chaos, violence, and frivolous lawsuits could follow if Trump is removed from the ballot.

Justice Samuel Alito's questioning focused on the potential for vexatious and frivolous lawsuits that could result from allowing Colorado to remove Trump from the ballot. This line of questioning raised concerns that this threat could be used to discourage the use of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment or similar measures in the future.

Mark Joseph Stern characterized this threat as a warning that if Trump is taken off the ballot, justices like Alito would be prepared to support future frivolous cases and retaliatory actions from red states against Democratic candidates. Stern emphasized the role of the Supreme Court in curbing such abuses, stating that the justices have the authority to determine the merits of cases and reject frivolous claims.

He further pointed out the importance of the Supreme Court as a check on potential abuses by red states, asserting that the court could easily dismiss retaliatory moves that are deemed absurd. Stern also challenged the argument that a ruling in favor of Colorado would lead to a slippery slope, noting that the court has previously shown selective judicial humility.

Stern highlighted the court's handling of gun rights cases as a relevant comparison, mentioning that in those cases, the justices did not consider the consequences of their decisions, disregarding the potential impact on public safety. However, in the Trump v. Anderson arguments, consequences seemed to be a focal point for the justices, particularly Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, who expressed concerns about the potential dangerous effects of a ruling in favor of Colorado.

The apparent shift in attitudes towards consequences led Stern to argue that there appears to be a disparity in the court's approach based on ideology. He cited the recent Bruen case, where the court declared many gun restrictions unconstitutional, despite the potential adverse effects. This contrast emphasizes the different perspectives on consequences between the liberal and conservative justices.

The threats and concerns raised during the oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson have sparked discussion about the potential implications for future cases involving the use of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and the court's responsibility to prevent frivolous lawsuits. As the Supreme Court deliberates on this important matter, it remains to be seen how the justices will balance the need for justice, while considering the potential consequences of their decisions.