Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Felons are barred from many jobs; president should be one of them

Donald Trump walking past a crowd of supporters

Donald Trump is a convicted felon but is still eligible to serve as president.

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Gross is a clinical associate professor of law at the University of Wisconsin Law School and director of the school’s Public Defender Project.

What can a felon do? Become president of the United States.

What can’t a felon do? That’s quite the list.


Ever since Donald Trump was found guilty of falsifying business records back in May — something that hasn’t changed despite the fact he has managed to have his sentencing postponed until after the election — people have asked me, a law professor, whether a convicted felon can be elected president of the United States. So let me break it down.

The Constitution lists only three requirements to hold the office of president: The person must be a natural-born citizen, be at least 35 years old and have lived in the United States for at least 14 years. The natural-born citizen requirement was put in place to prevent a member of a European monarchy from emigrating to the United States and acquiring enough influence to become president. The age and residency requirements had a similar goal: to prevent the children of influential politicians who spent time outside the United States from getting elected solely on name recognition.

While the drafters of our Constitution envisioned the possibility that a president would commit “high crimes and misdemeanors” in office and created the mechanism of impeachment to remove that person from office, they never conceived of the need to point out the obvious: that someone already convicted of high crimes would be an exceptionally poor choice to be president.

When Alexander Hamilton publicly confessed to an extramarital affair with a married woman, the consensus was that his private infidelity made him unsuitable to hold public office. Fast forward almost 250 years: Trump, a man who served as president and wants his old job back, has been convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up an extramarital affair.

What do they have in common? Like Trump, Hamilton made what could be regarded as hush-money payments to cover up his affair. But unlike Trump, Hamilton chose to reveal the affair to convince his political opponents that he hadn’t falsified records while serving as the secretary of the treasury.

Hamilton’s reputation suffered greatly, and his presidential ambitions were squashed, but he was never charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime. The drafters of our Constitution regarded his poor moral judgment enough to disqualify him.

Meanwhile, Congress and state legislatures have routinely imposed far-reaching “collateral consequences of conviction” on people convicted of crimes. They are barred from employment, housing, public benefits, educational opportunities and even participation in our democracy.

These sanctions are imposed automatically upon conviction in addition to whatever sentence a judge might impose. They reflect a moral judgment that people who commit crimes have placed themselves in a separate class of citizens who can be legally discriminated against.

With that in mind, consider such consequences in Florida, where Trump resides. He would be potentially disqualified from a wide range of jobs, including some of the ones he has previously held: He could be denied a license to run a hotel or restaurant, to operate as a real estate broker and even to sell lottery tickets.

Consider as well the contradiction between all the various responsibilities of the president of the United States and all the jobs that convicted felons are deemed too irresponsible to have.

Perhaps the most absurd result of another Trump presidency would be that the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces, who possesses the power to use nuclear weapons, would be barred by federal and state law from owning a firearm.

Along similar lines, the president is the head of federal law enforcement with pardoning power. Yet he doesn’t meet the minimum qualifications to be a law enforcement officer in Florida because he was convicted of a crime involving a false statement. And he would likely be barred from serving on Florida’s parole commission.

On the diplomacy front, the president can negotiate a ceasefire between warring factions such as Russia and Ukraine, but Trump’s conviction would likely bar him from serving as a court-appointed mediator in his home state.

There are other elements of irony in the ways a felon president cannot participate in some basic processes of government: Trump would not be able to lobby Congress or even serve as a presidential elector.

He also would have the power to issue an executive order ending birthright citizenship. Setting aside the fact that such an order would be blatantly unconstitutional, it is worth noting that his felony convictions for falsifying business records are crimes of “moral turpitude,” a category of crimes that would bar him from becoming a citizen if he wasn’t born in the United States.

One study estimates that there are over 27,000 rules that bar people convicted of crimes from holding professional licenses. A report by the Heritage Foundation found that many of these barriers to employment are counterproductive and actually increase rates of recidivism.

But if there is one collateral consequence of a felony conviction that makes perfect sense is that you shouldn’t be eligible to serve as president of the United States. Even if your sentencing has been delayed until after the election. The fact that this is not even a talking point one month before the election is beyond belief.

Read More

A person putting on an "I Voted" sticker.

The Supreme Court’s review of Louisiana v. Callais could narrow Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and limit challenges to racially discriminatory voting maps.

Getty Images, kali9

Louisiana v. Callais: The Supreme Court’s Next Test for Voting Rights

Background and Legal Landscape

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most powerful tools for combatting racial discrimination in voting. It prohibits any voting law, district map, or electoral process that results in a denial of the right to vote based on race. Crucially, Section 2 allows for private citizens and civil rights groups to challenge discriminatory electoral systems, a protection that has ensured fairer representation for communities of color. However, the Supreme Court is now considering whether to narrow Section 2’s reach in a high profile court case, Louisiana v. Callais. The case focuses on whether Louisiana’s congressional map—which only contains one majority Black district despite Black residents making up almost one-third of the population—violates Section 2 by diluting Black voting power. The Court’s decision to hear the case marks the latest chapter in the recent trend of judicial decisions around the scope and applications of the Voting Rights Act.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond the Protests: How To Support Immigrant Communities Amidst ICE Raids

A small flower wall, with information and signs, sits on the left side of the specified “free speech zone,” or the grassy area outside the Broadview ICE Detention Center, where law enforcement has allowed protestors to gather. The biggest sign, surrounded by flowers, says “THE PEOPLE UNITED WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED.”

Credit: Britton Struthers-Lugo, Oct. 30, 2025

Beyond the Protests: How To Support Immigrant Communities Amidst ICE Raids

The ongoing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids have created widespread panic and confusion across Chicago. Many of the city’s immigrant communities are hurting, and if you’ve found yourself asking “how can I help?”, you’re far from the only one.

“Every single one [U.S. resident] has constitutional rights regardless of their immigration status. And the community needs to know that. And when we allow those rights to be taken away from some, we risk that they're going to take all those rights from everyone. So we all need to feel compelled and concerned when we see that these rights are being stripped away from, right now, a group of people, because it will be just a matter of time for one of us to be the next target,” said Enrique Espinoza, an immigrant attorney at Chicago Kent College of Law.

Keep ReadingShow less
An abstract grid wall of shipping containers, unevenly arranged with some jutting out, all decorated in the colors and patterns of the USA flag. A prominent percentage sign overlays the grid.

The Supreme Court weighs Trump’s IEEPA tariffs, probing executive authority, rising consumer costs, manufacturing strain, and the future of U.S. trade governance.

Getty Images, J Studios

Tariffs on Trial: The Supreme Court’s Hidden Battle for Balance

On November 5, 2025, the Supreme Court convened what may be one of the most important trade cases of this generation. Justices across the ideological spectrum carefully probed whether a president may deploy sweeping import duties under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The outcome will resonate well beyond tariffs. It strikes at the heart of how America governs its commerce, regulates its markets, and wields power abroad.

President Trump’s argument rests on a dramatic claim: that persisting trade deficits, surging imports, and what he called a national security crisis tied to opioids and global supply chains justify tariffs of 10% to 50% on nearly all goods from most of the world. The statute invoked was intended for unusual and extraordinary threats—often adversarial regimes, economic warfare, or sanctions—not for broad-based economic measures against friend and foe alike. The justices registered deep doubts.

Keep ReadingShow less
Voting Rights Are Back on Trial...Again

Vote here sign

Caitlin Wilson/AFP via Getty Images

Voting Rights Are Back on Trial...Again

Last month, one of the most consequential cases before the Supreme Court began. Six white Justices, two Black and one Latina took the bench for arguments in Louisiana v. Callais. Addressing a core principle of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: representation. The Court is asked to consider if prohibiting the creation of voting districts that intentionally dilute Black and Brown voting power in turn violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th and 15th Amendments.

For some, it may be difficult to believe that we’re revisiting this question in 2025. But in truth, the path to voting has been complex since the founding of this country; especially when you template race over the ballot box. America has grappled with the voting question since the end of the Civil War. Through amendments, Congress dropped the term “property” when describing millions of Black Americans now freed from their plantation; then later clarified that we were not only human beings but also Americans before realizing the right to vote could not be assumed in this country. Still, nearly a century would pass before President Lyndon B Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ensuring voting was accessible, free and fair.

Keep ReadingShow less