After reports that former President Donald Trump pressured Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to reject a ceasefire deal, some have called for him to be prosecuted under the Logan Act. But it’s unlikely to actually happen.

On Tuesday afternoon, lawyer and CNN contributor Steve Vladeck posted on X, “Stop trying to make the Logan Act happen. (Because it’s unconstitutionally vague and an unconstitutionally overbroad content-based restriction on speech that’s never been successfully used to prosecute anyone.)”

Stop trying to make the Logan Act happen.

(Because it’s unconstitutionally vague and an unconstitutionally overbroad content-based restriction on speech that’s never been successfully used to prosecute anyone.)

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) August 20, 2024

Vladeck is likely correct — particularly since his area of legal expertise is in national security law with an emphasis on war crimes. But let’s look into it.

READ MORE: ‘Close’: Trump Claims World War III Could Erupt if He Does Not Become President Again

What is the Logan Act?

The Logan Act is a law dating back to 1799. It makes it illegal for an unauthorized American citizen to negotiate with foreign governments. It’s a felony, punishable with up to three years in prison.

It was named after Dr. George Logan of Pennsylvania, who in 1798 attempted to negotiate with the French government during the “Quasi-War.” Logan was a Democratic-Republican, but the U.S. government was controlled at the time by the Federalist party. The Federalists said Logan was trying to undermine their government, and passed the act in order to stop it from happening again.

Since then, people have been accused of violating the act, but nothing has ever come from it. Logan himself ended up being appointed and elected to the Senate and even served as a legitimate U.S. ambassador.

How has Trump allegedly violated the Logan Act?

Trump has been accused a few times of violating the Logan Act after the end of his presidency. In July, Trump met with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, according to Newsweek. Orbán said Trump told him that if Trump were re-elected he wouldn’t “give a single penny” to Ukraine. Orbán is an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

More recently, however, Trump allegedly spoke with Netanyahu, according to The New Republic. Reportedly, Trump has asked Netanyahu to not accept the ceasefire deal proposed by the Biden administration until after the election, since a ceasefire could boost the presidential campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris.

Netanyahu’s side denied last week that he discussed the ceasefire deal with Trump.

Why Trump likely won’t be prosecuted

As Vladeck says, no one has ever been successfully prosecuted under the Logan Act. But it goes farther than that. Not only has no one been successfully prosecuted, there’ve only been two people charged with it. And both of those were in the 1800s; once in 1802 and once in 1852.

There are also questions as to whether or not the act is even constitutional. Though it has never been officially ruled on, a 1964 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York said the act likely ran afoul of the Sixth Amendment, the right to a speedy and fair trial.

“That doubt is engendered by the statute’s use of the vague and indefinite terms, ‘defeat’ and ‘measures’. Neither of these words is an abstraction of common certainty or possesses a definite statutory or judicial definition,” Judge William Bernard Herlands wrote in his decision, though he decided against ruling specifically on the constitutional question.

Given the unlikelihood of a successful prosecution — and the potential for the Logan Act to get thrown out entirely — many prosecutors would find it foolhardy to try to charge Trump under this particular law.

Former head of the Republican National Committee Michael Steele accused the judge of dragging her feet in former President Donald Trump’s case about improper handling of classified documents.

On Friday, Trump’s defense lawyers put forth a motion to dismiss special counsel Jack Smith under allegations that he was illegally appointed, according to the Associated Press. Despite admitting that Smith’s appointment appears to be supported by precedent, Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon agreed to a three-day hearing to determine the challenge’s validity, according to The Washington Post. While defense attorneys will often challenge the standing of the prosecution, not every challenge necessarily warrants a full hearing.

Steele called out Cannon on Sunday’s edition of Inside with Jen Psaki on MSNBC. He called the particular challenge against Smith a “long shot,” according to The Hill, and said most judges would dismiss it out of hand.

READ MORE: Judge Cannon’s ‘Mind Boggling’ Move Could Put Witnesses at Risk, Experts Warn

“But apparently, Judge Cannon just had to have a hearing about it. It’s the last delay tactic from a judge who’s wasted countless months on frivolous motions. She has all but refused to allow Trump’s case to go to trial and still, still hasn’t even set a date for the trial to begin,” Steele said. He also accused Cannon of “effectively putting the prosecution on trial.”

Cannon has faced much criticism over her handling of the Trump documents case. In May, she postponed the trial indefinitely, putting the kibosh on hopes that the case would be heard before the November election. Her reasoning was that it would be “imprudent and inconsistent with the Court’s duty to fully and fairly consider the various pending pre-trial motions before the Court,” referring to motions like the one to dismiss Smith.

Rulings like this have led legal experts to trash Cannon. Constitutional law professor Anthony Michael Kreis called Cannon “incompetently bad.” George Conway, a lawyer and founder of the conservative anti-Trump The Lincoln Project, said Cannon “doesn’t know the most basic rule governing criminal conspiracies.” Conway’s comment was in response to Cannon appearing unfamiliar with the Pinkerton rule, which holds that everyone involved in a conspiracy can be held liable for crimes committed by co-conspirators. This appears to back up NBC News legal analyst Joyce Vance’s statement that Smith has to “spoon feed… the law” to Judge Cannon.

One month ago, Laurence Tribe, a top constitutional scholar and University Professor Emeritus at Harvard, said that Cannon would likely be removed from the Trump documents case.

“Cannon’s wildly lawless rejection of Special Counsel Smith’s clearly correct request for a gag order against fake and dangerous claims that the FBI was ordered to assassinate him is good news,” Tribe wrote on X. “It’s the smoking gun that will finally lead to her removal from the stolen secrets case.”

States across the nation are determining whether or not former President Donald Trump can appear on ballots in upcoming primary elections—and if Trump is even eligible to serve. Most of these arguments hinge on the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

But with some states—like Maine and Colorado—moving to strike Trump from the ballot, while others—including California, Minnesota and Michigan—deciding to keep Trump in the primaries, is there a clear answer as to whether or not the 14th Amendment actually applies? Let’s take a look at the arguments, for and against.

What is the 14th Amendment?

The 14th Amendment lays out the rules for being an elected official in the federal government, and is also the home of the equal protection clause. While the equal protection clause—which sets up due process—is important, most of the focus in this particular fight is on Section 3.

Section 3 reads as follows:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 3 was passed shortly after the Civil War, and ratified in 1868. It was intended to keep former Confederates out of Congress and the electoral college. In 1872, Congress invoked the last clause of the section to give immunity to most former Confederates, except for those high up in the Confederacy—for example, General Robert E. Lee or President Jefferson Davis.

Prior to Trump, Section 3 has been invoked only once after the Civil War. Victor Berger, a Socialist Party of America member from Wisconsin was barred from his elected seat in the House of Representatives in 1919 and 1920. Berger had been convicted in 1919 of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 for speaking against the U.S.’ entry into World War I. The Supreme Court ruled in 1921 that Section 3 did not apply to Berger, and he served three more terms in the House, from 1923 to 1929.

Why The 14th Amendment Disqualifies Trump

Both Maine and Colorado have barred Trump from their primary ballots, citing the 14th Amendment. In Maine’s ruling Thursday evening, Secretary of State Shenna Bellows said that Trump “engaged in insurrection” on January 6, 2021, when his supporters stormed the Capitol Building in order to stop the confirmation of the 2020 election results in Congress.

“I do not reach this conclusion lightly,” Bellows wrote, according to the AP. “I am mindful that no Secretary of State has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. I am also mindful, however, that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection.”

On December 19, Colorado’s Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that Trump was ineligible to appear on the primary ballot due to the 14th Amendment, according to the AP. The court ruled that Trump indeed engaged in an insurrection, and thus, was not able to be president.

Other politicians and pundits have weighed in. Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, a former professor of constitutional law, said the Constitution “could not be any clearer,” according to The Hill.

“This is a chance for these [Supreme Court] justices to show that they really mean it when they talk about textualism, when they talk about originalism. The plain text of the Constitution could not be any clearer,” Raskin said. “If Donald Trump is not disqualified from holding office again after what he did on January 6 in the weeks leading up to it, then who is disqualified? Why would they read an entire provision out of the constitution?”

Another constitutional law professor, Mark A. Graber of the University of Maryland, agrees. Graber puts particular emphasis on the part of Section 3 about a person who had previously taken an oath to protect the Constitution who engages in insurrection.

“These oaths bind officeholders to follow all the rules in the Constitution. The only legitimate government officers are those who hold their offices under the constitutional rules. Lawmakers must follow the Constitution’s rules for making laws. Officeholders can only recognize laws that were made by following the rules – and they must recognize all such laws as legitimate,” Graber wrote in an essay for The Conversation.

Why It Doesn’t Apply to Trump

On the other hand, most of the court rulings in favor of Trump ask questions of jurisdiction and standing. In Florida, a federal district judge ruled that the lawyer and voters who sued to remove Trump didn’t have standing, according to Forbes. In Michigan and Minnesota both, Trump was allowed to remain on the ballot because Trump had qualified for the primary election, but the courts said the cases could be brought again should Trump enter the general election.

In California, Secretary of State Shirley Weber declined to honor a request from Lt. Governor Eleni Kounalakis to “explore every legal option” to boot Trump from the ballot citing the 14th Amendment, according to the New York Times. However, California state law does not legally give the secretary of state authority to disqualify candidates in the presidential race, the Times reports. This sets California apart from most other states, where secretaries of state indeed have that power.

As with the argument in favor of dumping Trump, politicians have come out to say that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply in this case. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) said that Section 3 only applies to the former Confederacy, and has no modern application.

“The 14th Amendment referred to, basically, people who had risen in rebellion and fought a war for four years. There’s no point at which it references anybody today,” Gingrich said, according to The Hill.

Gingrich also said that Trump had not been charged with insurrection, “because you can’t. Because an insurrection is a unique and classifiable thing.”

Legal scholar Kurt Lash wrote an op-ed for the New York Times that posits that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply, as the presidency is not, as the Constitution requires, a “‘civil’ office ‘under the United States.'”

Of course, we’ll have to wait for the Supreme Court to decide before we’ll have an official answer. While both chambers of Congress could give Trump an exemption, this seems unlikely as the Republican control of the House is by a razor-thin margin, and the Democrats control the Senate.

But either way, until then, Trump’s political fate lies in limbo.