Advocate for Colorado voters faced tough questions from his former bosses

It would be a difficult task for anyone making their first argument before the Supreme Court.

As an attorney representing a group of Colorado voters seeking to keep former President Donald J. Trump off the ballot, Jason Murray, 38, faced a skeptical majority in a high-stakes argument that could determine the outcome of the presidential election.

He also appeared before two of his former bosses: Justices Elena Kagan and Neil M. Gorsuch.

After graduating from Harvard Law School, he clerked for Judge Gorsuch, then a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, and later clerked for Judge Kagan for a year, ending in 2014.

The pair often face each other in ideologically charged cases on issues such as abortion, voting rights and affirmative action. But both Judge Kagan, a liberal nominated by President Barack Obama, and Judge Gorsuch, a Trump appointee who has helped shift the court to the right, seemed concerned about the implications of the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to expel Mr. Trump to close the primary vote. . Each of them bombarded Mr. Murray with a scathing barrage of questions.

Judge Kagan pressed the implications of allowing Colorado to ban Mr. Trump, wondering what would happen if the state at the center of the case were instead a swing state like Michigan or Wisconsin.

“Perhaps most boldly put, I think the question to ask is why should a single state decide who becomes president of the United States,” Judge Kagan said. “That seems quite special, doesn't it?”

Mr Murray responded that it was “not unusual for issues of national importance to be raised by different states.”

That answer did not seem to satisfy Judge Gorsuch, who intervened.

“Do you agree that state power here over the vote to elect federal officers should come from some constitutional authority?” Justice Gorsuch asked.

Mr Murray tried to deflect it: “Members of this court disagree on that.”

“I'm asking you,” Judge Gorsuch shot back, laughing emphatically.

The exchange lasted almost five minutes.

Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., known for his questions about intrusive mortgages, pressed Murray about a situation in which a president had incited an insurrection but remained in office.

“During that interim period, would it be permissible for military commanders and other officers to disobey orders from the president in question?” Judge Alito asked.

When Mr. Murray telegraphed uncertainty, Judge Gorsuch immediately intervened.

“Why – why – why – why not? You're saying he's disqualified the moment this happens,” Judge Gorsuch said. “But if he is actually disqualified, why should anyone take his cue?”

After Mr. Murray insisted it wasn't that simple and tried to make his argument, Justice Gorsuch sounded a note of exasperation.

“Put that aside,” Justice Gorsuch demanded. He continued, “I think Judge Alito is asking a very different question, a more pointed question and a more difficult question for you, I understand that, but I think it deserves an answer.”

What followed was a sharp exchange, even by the standards of the normally sharp, rapid-fire arguments.

Mr. Murray tried to shift the hypothesis by suggesting what might happen if the president, instead of participating in an insurrection, had violated another term of office, such as being under 35 years old.

Justice interrupted him, “Please don't change the hypothetical situation, okay?”

“I'm…” Mr. Murray tried to speak.

'Please don't change the hypothesis. I know. I like doing it too, but please don't do it, okay? justice rebuked. That time the audience didn't laugh.