Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump was wrongly excluded from Colorado’s primary ballot, paving the way for him to appear on ballots in all 50 states.
The court’s unanimous decision overturns a 4-3 Colorado Supreme Court ruling that ruled the former president could not run for office because he committed insurrection during the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Colorado’s decision was a novel interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits insurrectionists from holding public office.
“We conclude that a state may disqualify a person holding or seeking to hold state office. However, each state has a constitutional right to Article 3 regarding federal office, particularly the presidential office. “There is no authority to compel this,” the court said. wrote an unsigned opinion. The court said Congress should have established a disqualification process under Article III.
“Resolving the question of whether Article III bars certain presidential candidates from holding office on a state-by-state basis is highly unlikely to yield a uniform answer consistent with the fundamental principles that the president…represents. Probably.[s] every voter in the country,” the court added.
Colorado’s presidential primary was held on Tuesday, and Trump was allowed to appear on the ballot while his lawsuit was pending. Judges in Maine and Illinois have also removed Trump from the vote, and their decisions are likely to be reversed soon.
All nine justices agreed with the case’s central ruling that the Colorado Supreme Court unfairly barred Trump from appearing on the ballot. But the agreement did not extend beyond that.
The majority opinion went on to state that the only way to enforce Article III is through Congressional legislation specifically tailored to determine which individuals should be disqualified from insurrection. However, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson all addressed the findings. It went beyond the scope of the case, and liberal justices specifically said the court was shielding the insurrectionists from responsibility.
“The court continues to address questions that are not before us. In cases that do not involve any federal litigation, the court will opine on how federal enforcement of Article III should proceed.” wrote the liberal justices. “These speculations are both gratuitous and poorly supported.”
Liberal justices said the court’s conservative majority made it nearly impossible to hold the insurrectionists accountable. They wrote that the court “prevents judicial enforcement” of the provision and “precludes its enforcement under general federal laws that require the government to comply with the law.”
“By resolving these and other questions, the majority seeks to distance all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to federal office,” they wrote.
Barrett, a conservative who was also appointed by President Trump, did not fully accept the majority opinion. “I agree that states do not have the authority to enforce Article III against presidential candidates. This principle is sufficient to resolve this case, and I will make no further decision,” she said. wrote.
But she continued to accuse her liberal colleagues of amplifying differences on the court.
“In my judgment, now is not the time to amplify vocal disagreements. In a volatile presidential election season, the Court has resolved the issue politically. Especially in this situation, the Court’s writing is a matter of public opinion. We need to bring temperatures down, not up,” she wrote.
President Trump spoke at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida and praised the Supreme Court’s decision. “I would like to thank the Supreme Court for today’s unanimous decision. It was a very important decision and a very well thought out decision. I think it will go a long way in uniting us,” he said.
None of the opinions addressed the central political question of the case: whether President Trump committed an insurrection on January 6th.
After newsletter promotion
“Although the Supreme Court allowed Donald Trump to return to the polls on technical legal grounds, this was by no means a victory for Trump. The Supreme Court must acquit Trump in this case. We had the opportunity and chose not to,” said Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, a left-leaning group that supported the Colorado lawsuit. statement. “The Supreme Court missed the timing in removing the enforcement mechanism and putting Trump back on the ballot. But it is now clear that Trump led the January 6th insurrection and will ensure accountability.” It’s up to the American people to decide whether to do so.”
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, enacted after the Civil War, states that any U.S. representative or official who rebels after being sworn to the Constitution is prohibited from holding office. Until now, it has never been used to remove a presidential candidate from public office.
During oral arguments in February, nearly all of the justices expressed skepticism about Colorado’s ability to remove Trump from the ballot. They feared the chaos that would be caused if states had the unilateral power to determine that a candidate had been involved in an insurrection, which they feared could lead to chaotic partisan retaliation.
“We expect that a significant number of states will have whoever the Democratic candidate is off the ballot, and other states that the Republican candidate will be off the ballot. Only one will decide the presidential election. It’s going to be a handful of states. That’s a pretty scary outcome,” Chief Justice John Roberts said during oral argument.
The Colorado Supreme Court held a five-day hearing in which a Denver trial judge ruled that President Trump, who committed an insurrection on January 6, was not disqualified from voting because he was not a U.S. officer. A judgment has been made and a conclusion has been reached.
At the end of their opinion, the three liberal justices offered a full-throated defense of why Section 3 is still necessary.
“Section 3 is rarely needed, but it plays an important role in our democracy. The American people have the power to vote and elect candidates for national office, and that is a wonderful and glorious thing. But those who drafted and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment were witnessing a “rebellion.” [and] They rebelled in defense of slavery. They wanted to ensure that those who participated in that riot, and those who participated in any future riots, could not return to important roles,” they wrote.
“Today, the majority goes beyond the needs of this case and limits the ways in which Article III can prevent an insurrectionist who has broken his oath from becoming president.”
