Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Which specific articles of the US Constitution have been cited in lawsuits against Trump?
Executive Summary
The record shows plaintiffs and judges have invoked at least two specific constitutional provisions in litigation involving Donald Trump: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment and the First Amendment. Litigation and commentary after the 2020 election and the Supreme Court’s later decisions produced competing legal theories about disqualification, presidential immunity, and retaliation against speech, with sources dated from September 2025 through January 2026 reflecting evolving arguments and judicial responses [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. A Constitutional Bolt from the Past: Section Three’s Reemergence in Disqualification Claims
Litigants revived Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, arguing that participation in the January 6 events and related efforts to overturn the 2020 election could disqualify Trump from future office. This claim drew renewed attention in 2025 as lawsuits pressed courts to interpret the post-Civil War provision against modern insurrection-related conduct; coverage emphasizing the statute’s “sweep and force” appeared on September 22, 2025 [1]. Proponents framed Section Three as a direct textual bar, while opponents questioned its applicability and the appropriate judicial remedies, producing a split of legal strategies and political messaging.
2. Free Speech and the First Amendment: Who Can Retaliate Against Whom?
Separate litigation focused on First Amendment claims, arguing that government actions targeting law firms, news organizations, and critics amounted to unconstitutional retaliation or suppression of dissent. This line of suits and judicial pushback emerged in late 2025 reporting and litigation histories, with analysis published November 5, 2025 noting how plaintiffs alleged suppression of channels for political challenge [2]. Courts, as reported in September 2025, showed skepticism toward government efforts to punish speech, with judges ruling against retaliatory actions and reinforcing longstanding protections against viewpoint-based government retaliation [4].
3. The Supreme Court’s Immunity Ruling Recast the Playing Field
The Supreme Court decision in Trump v. United States, described in October 2025 sources, granted broad immunity for certain presidential acts, reshaping litigation tactics and raising concerns about checks on executive power [3]. Advocates for the immunity framing emphasized constitutional separation-of-powers logic, portraying the ruling as affirming core presidential authority. Critics warned this decision curtailed accountability and could enable sweeping executive actions without criminal exposure, a view reflected in commentary through January 2026 that argued the decision removed a key check on presidential authority [5].
4. Conflicting Judicial Reactions: Federal Judges Push Back on Retaliation Theories
Despite the Supreme Court’s immunity holding, lower federal judges continued to reject aggressive retaliation and restraint of speech when government actors appeared to target critics, as reported in September 2025 [4]. Those rulings underscore a transactional legal landscape: immunity arguments can shield certain official acts, while First Amendment doctrine still constrains retaliatory conduct. The tension between immunity and free-speech protections has driven divergent outcomes in different forums and informed strategic shifts by plaintiffs and defendants in late 2025 and into early 2026 [3] [4].
5. Political Rhetoric Entered the Legal Mix: Alarm Over “Termination” of the Constitution
Public statements by Trump calling for radical changes—including reported calls to “terminate” the Constitution—added political context that plaintiffs and commentators used to frame urgency and motive in legal claims [6]. Republican criticism of such rhetoric in October 2025 highlighted electoral rather than purely legal consequences, but plaintiffs cited public statements to bolster arguments about intent or threat to constitutional norms. Opponents of using rhetoric as admissible legal evidence cautioned against conflating political speech with the specific, provable acts required for constitutional disqualification or criminal liability [6].
6. Competing Agendas: Litigation as Law and Politics Both
Sources reflect distinct agendas: Section Three litigants pursued constitutional disqualification to limit political power, while First Amendment claimants sought to protect traditional expressive forums from governmental retaliation [1] [2]. Advocates leaning conservative emphasized executive immunity and separation-of-powers protections highlighted by the Supreme Court decision [3]. Critics, including some commentators through January 2026, warned that both immunity expansions and rhetoric minimizing constitutional norms serve a political agenda that could weaken institutional checks [5] [6].
7. What the Record Actually Shows and What Remains Open
The record establishes that Section Three and the First Amendment are the key constitutional provisions cited in the documented litigation and commentary through early 2026, and that a major Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity reshaped litigation strategies [1] [2] [3] [4]. Unresolved questions remain about universal applicability of Section Three, how immunity doctrine interacts with disqualification claims, and whether political speech can reliably prove intent for constitutional bars—issues courts will continue to grapple with as cases proceed and as the calendar advances beyond the cited reporting.