Liberal groups aiming to prevent former President Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot due to his alleged role in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack are leveraging a surprising source in their arguments to the Supreme Court: the late Justice Antonin Scalia. The advocates cite Scalia’s 2014 concurring opinion as evidence supporting the application of the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban” to former presidents, countering Trump’s claim that the ban does not include him. The case, slated for oral arguments next week, holds the key to whether Trump can run for president again.

In their legal filings, opponents of Trump, including liberal groups and former Republican officials, reference Scalia’s opinion to underscore that the plain text of the 14th Amendment demands its application to former presidents. They argue that Scalia’s 2014 concurring opinion, which involved a labor dispute, suggests that all “officers” of the United States must be appointed by the president unless the Constitution specifies otherwise. Trump asserts that as a former president, he is not an “officer” under the 14th Amendment.

By appealing to Scalia’s conservative legal principles, the groups hope to make a persuasive case to the Supreme Court, where conservatives hold a 6-3 majority, including three justices appointed by Trump. This strategic move is aimed at demonstrating that even within the realm of conservative jurisprudence, there is support for interpreting the 14th Amendment to apply to former presidents.

While this legal battle unfolds, it highlights how past statements from conservative justices, including Scalia, are being utilized to counter Trump’s arguments and shape the narrative around the interpretation of constitutional provisions.