E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
A few days ago, Juan Williams wrote an op-ed in The Hill arguing that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment bars Donald Trump from being elected President in 2024. Williams went on to say that Attorney General Garland should issue a legal opinion reaching that conclusion.
I doubt that the Attorney General is keen to wade into this matter now (either directly or by asking the OLC to do so). There is, however, precedent for such an opinion. In 1885, President Grover Cleveland sought an opinion from his Attorney General about whether an ex-Confederate that he considering for an ambassador position was ineligible under Section Three for such an appointment. The Attorney General then wrote a (rather questionable) opinion stating that the person was not ineligible.
The Attorney General could therefore ask the OLC to examine the question of whether Donald Trump is ineligible to receive a presidential appointment to something that is clearly covered by Section 3. This is not the same as asking whether Trump is ineligible to be elected president. But I don't really see why the Attorney General can opine on that issue unless and until Trump actually runs or Congress passes some sort of enforcement legislation. When the issue of Trump's eligibility is litigated in 2023 or 2024, the AG can file an amicus brief and give the view of the United States.
Still, perhaps there is some merit in getting an OLC opinion on the other aspects of what occurred on January 6th (whether it was an insurrection, what constitutes "engaging in insurrection," etc.)