Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch chided Colorado lawyer Jason Murray on Thursday after Murray tried to skirt around Gorsuch’s line of questioning.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled 4-3 in December that Trump is ineligible to be on the state’s primary ballot under Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment. Trump appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments Thursday regarding the case.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito questioned Murray, who is representing Colorado voters, on whether military officers could have refused to take an order from a president who engaged in insurrection, with Murray implying officers could not, a theory known as the de Facto Officer Doctrine.

Gorsuch interjected to note that Murray had previously argued that Trump is disqualified from holding office “from the moment [an insurrection] happens.” (RELATED: Jake Tapper Questions Colorado Secretary of State If The Five-Day Trial She Gave Trump Was Actually Fair)

“So you say there’s no legislation necessary, I thought that was the whole theory of your case,” Gorsuch said.

Murray argued that “of course” there needs to be a procedure to remedy the enforcement of the disqualification and began to speak of the de Facto Officer Doctrine before Gorsuch told Murray to put that argument of ‘DeFacto Doctrine’ aside.

The de Facto Officer Doctrine precludes “challenges to official actions on the ground of defective title in the acting official,” according to Columbia Law Review. In simpler terms, the doctrine gives validity to the acts performed by a person who was acting in the capacity of their title even though it may later be discovered that persons election or appointment is invalid.

Gorsuch then said, under Murray’s argument, that if the 14th Amendment is self-executing and Trump is disqualified from the moment he allegedly engaged in insurrection then military officers could ignore an order from the president and be free to act as they please.

Murray said he doesn’t agree with that because the defacto doctrine would “come into play.”

“Put that aside, I’m not gonna say it again, put that aside,” Gorsuch chided, adding Alito may be asking Murray a question more “difficult” for Murray to be capable of answering.

“On your theory, would anything compel a lower official to obey an order from, in your view, the former president?” Gorsuch asked.

“I’m imagining a situation where, for example, a former president, a president, was elected and they were 25 and they were ineligible to hold office but nevertheless–”

“No, no, no” Gorsuch cut in. “We’re talking about Section 3. Please don’t change the hypothetical. Okay? Please don’t change the hypothetical. I know, I like doing it, too. But please don’t do it. Okay?”

“He’s disqualified from the moment he committed an insurrection, whoever it is, whichever party, that happens, boom. It happened. What would compel – I’m not gonna say it again so just try to answer the question – and if you don’t have an answer, fair enough, we’ll move on. What would compel a lower official to obey an order from that individual?”

“Because ultimately we have statutes and rules requiring chains of command. The person is in the office and even if they don’t have the authority to hold the office, the only way to get someone out of the office of the presidency is impeachment. And so I think if you interpreted section three in light of other provisions in the Constitution like impeachment while they hold office, impeachment is the only way to validate that they don’t have the ability to hold that office and should be removed.”

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson then jumped in to ask about the enforcement of Section 3 during presidential elections.