The Supreme Court ruled Monday that former President Trump cannot be disqualified from appearing on state ballots despite allegations that he “engaged in an insurrection” after losing the 2020 election and should therefore be barred by the Constitution. occupy a position.
In overturning a ruling by Colorado judges, the high court said states do not have the authority to interpret the post-Civil War 14th Amendment or use it to remove a presidential candidate from the state ballot.
It was a unanimous decision without a signature.
In December, the Colorado Supreme Court decided that Trump was disqualified from running for president because he violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. He says no person can “hold any office, civil or military” who has taken an oath to support the Constitution and then participated in an “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States.
Historians and jurists told the court in friend-of-the-court briefs that the Reconstruction Congress sought to prevent “insurrectionists” from gaining power and subverting American democracy.
The justices did not challenge that interpretation of history, but seemed more concerned about allowing state judges to remove from the ballot a candidate who is the overwhelming choice of Republican voters.
“Because the Constitution holds Congress, and not the states, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officials and candidates, we reverse,” Monday's ruling stated.
All nine justices said they agreed that Colorado or any state cannot disqualify a presidential candidate based on the 14th Amendment.
But Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Amy Coney Barrett objected to part of the court's opinion that said Congress must enact a law to enforce this provision of the 14th Amendment.
“Today, the majority goes beyond the needs of this case to limit how Section 3 can prevent an oath-breaking insurrectionist from becoming president. While we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority's effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision. Since we will decide only the matter before us, we only agree on the sentence,” the court's three liberals wrote.
Barrett presented a similar agreement.
“I agree that states lack the power to enforce Section 3 against presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this case and I would not decide more than that. …In my opinion, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The court has resolved a politically charged issue in the volatile presidential election season. Especially in these circumstances, the court briefs should lower the national temperature, not raise it. For present purposes, our differences are much less important than our unanimity: all nine justices agree on the outcome of this case. That's the message Americans should take home. “
The court moved with unusual speed to hear Trump's appeal and rule in his favor. His attorneys asked the court to review the Colorado case on Jan. 3. Two days later, the appeal was granted and arguments were held on February 8.
The judges ruled in favor of Trump in less than a month and in time for his votes to be counted in the Colorado primary on Tuesday.
The court has moved less quickly to resolve Trump's separate claim for presidential immunity from prosecution. As a result, the criminal trial into his Jan. 6 role may not be held until after the November election.
Last week, the court announced it would hear Trump's immunity claim and set arguments for the week of April 22. Under that schedule, the judges are not likely to rule before June.
By then, it may be too late for the trial to take place before the November election.
Monday's court opinion does not discuss or decide whether Trump participated in an insurrection after losing the election in November 2020.
The lawyers who filed the lawsuit in Colorado called it something of a victory.
“While the Supreme Court allowed Donald Trump to return to the polls on legal technicalities, this was by no means a victory for Trump. The Supreme Court had the opportunity in this case to exonerate Trump and decided not to,” said Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW.
Election law experts also noted that Colorado's decision does not prevent members of Congress from objecting to Trump's election if he wins in November.
“This decision does not resolve the contentious issues of the insurrection, which will remain alive and contested in the public domain for months to come,” said Derek Muller, a Notre Dame law professor. “But it closes the door on any exclusion of Trump from the ballot in any state, whether in the primary or the general.”
