Constitutional law scholar Steven Calabresi no longer believes the Constitution disqualifies Donald Trump from being re-elected to the White House.

Last month, Calabresi, a law professor at Northwestern, endorsed the theory that Trump is constitutionally disqualified from running for president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Calabresi argued Trump broke his oath of office when he participated in an "insurrection or rebellion" on Jan. 6, 2021.

But now Calabresi has changed his mind completely.

Calabresi — who emphasized that he is a "Never Trumper" and would vote for a Democrat over Trump — explained in a new essay that a "technicality in the drafting" of Section 3 means it "does not apply to Trump."

The question centers on whether Trump was "an officer of the United States" on Jan. 6. This is critical to the theory because Trump is not a member of any of the other groups — members of Congress, members of state legislatures, or state executive and judicial officers — that Section 3 targets.

And, according to Calabresi, "officer of the United States" is a "legal term of art" that does not apply to Trump.

To bolster his case, Calabresi relies on intratextualism to discern how the phrase is used in other parts of the Constitution, specifically Article II:

The sum total of textual evidence, Calabresi argued, means Trump can appear on the ballot in 2024.

Textual evidence aside, Calabresi said that using the 14th Amendment to disqualify Trump "would set a bad precedent for American politics" because the legal argument is "a very muddled area of constitutional law" that has resulted in a "confused state of the law."

The 14th Amendment argument gained significant traction after a law article in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review made a comprehensive argument for Trump's disqualification.

That argument, however, is already being scrutinized and picked apart.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!