Throughout oral arguments Thursday, both conservative and liberal Supreme Court justices voiced skepticism that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment could be used to justify Trump’s removal from ballots in Colorado or other states.

Like several conservative justices, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed plaintiffs’ lawyer Jason Murray on whether Section 3 applied to presidents.

“Why didn’t they put the word ‘president’ in the very enumerated list in Section 3? The thing that really is troubling to me is, I totally understand your argument that they were listing people that were barred and president is not there,” Jackson said.

Earlier, Justice Elena Kagan questioned Murray on the idea that a single state could block a federal candidate from appearing on a ballot.

“I think that the question you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States,” Kagan said.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned Murray on who decides what constitutes “engaged in insurrection,” the wording of Section 3 that disqualifies those who have taken an oath of office from holding office again.

Chief Justice John Roberts called the idea that individual states could be allowed to block a candidate from appearing on a ballot while others left that person on them “a daunting prospect.”

In all, it seemed to be tough going for Murray, indicating that the court may be unlikely to allow the ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court barring Trump from the ballot in that state to stand.