Donald Trump’s just-filed cert. petition in the United States Supreme Court, like the earlier-filed cert. petition from the Colorado Republican Party, raises serious issues of profound national importance that merit extraordinarily expedited review by the United States Supreme Court.

This is the case in which the Colorado Supreme Court removed Trump from the ballot under section 3 of 14th Amendment, a part of the Constitution that bars (among others) those who had sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and who later participated in insurrection from serving in office (unless Congress by a 2/3 vote removes this disability from serving).

Trump’s cert petition is a strong legal document; it is not like the garbage filed after the 2020 election in the Kraken lawsuits. It raises some serious difficult questions, such as whether disqualification under the 14th amendment must be done by Congress or through a statute designed by Congress. (The brief mentions other, less serious issues too, such as protection under the First Amendment for Trump’s speech inspiring the invasion of the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and whether the Colorado courts somehow violated the independent state legislature theory in the procedures used to disqualify Trump from the ballot.) This is not to say that Trump has presented slam-dunk arguments that he should win; rather, these are arguments that merit consideration by the Supreme Court.

As I’ve argued repeatedly since my September 2023 Atlantic piece, we need national resolution of these issues for two independent and strong reasons. First voters risk being disenfranchised by voting for an ineligible candidate. Voters deserve to know whether the candidate they are considering supporting may actually serve in office; otherwise they waste their votes and are deprived of an opportunity to vote for their next choice. Second, the uncertainty of Trump’s qualification to serve risks political instability. The nightmare scenario is that Trump appears to win election in 2024 in the electoral college, only to have a Democratic-dominated Congress hold he’s ineligible to run. That’s a recipe for political instability and potential violence.

Resolving the questions on the merits could eliminate both of these uncertainties. But, and this is key, Trump’s opening argument as to why the Colorado court erred would actually exacerbate the problem. He argues that disqualification is a political question to be resolved only by Congress, meaning the issue would get kicked down the road, potentially not resolved until after the election on January 6, 2025, hanging like an albatross around the nation’s head.

So while I very much want the Supreme Court to take this case and resolve it on an expedited time frame so that no voter is disenfranchised, I very much do not want the case resolved on the grounds that Trump’s disqualification presents a nonjusticiable political question that must be determined only by Congress.

Stay tuned.