The Supreme Court ruled Monday that former President Trump cannot be disqualified from appearing on state ballots despite allegations that he “engaged in insurrection” after losing the 2020 election, and therefore must be constitutionally barred from holding office.
The Supreme Court, in overturning a ruling by Colorado justices, said states had no authority to interpret the 14th Amendment after the Civil War or use it to remove a presidential candidate from a state's ballot.
It was a unanimous, unsigned resolution.
In December, the Colorado Supreme Court decided to disqualify Trump from running for president because he violated Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. It says no person “may hold any office, civil or military” who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and then engage in “rebellion or rebellion” against the United States.
Legal scholars and historians told the court in amicus curiae briefs that the Reconstruction Convention sought to prevent “rebels” from coming to power and subverting American democracy.
The justices did not object to this reading of history, but they seemed more interested in allowing state judges to remove a candidate who represents the overwhelming choice of Republican voters from the ballot.
“Because the Constitution makes Congress, not the states, responsible for enforcing Title 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse,” Monday’s ruling said.
All nine justices said they agreed that neither Colorado nor any state may disqualify a presidential candidate based on the 14th Amendment.
But Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Amy Coney Barrett dissented from part of the court's opinion that said Congress must enact a law to enforce that provision in the 14th Amendment.
“Today, the majority goes beyond the imperatives of this case to limit how Section 3 can prevent an oath-breaking rebel from becoming president. Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest “Because we will decide only the case before us, we agree only in ruling,” the court's three liberals wrote on the majority's effort to use this case to determine the limits of federal enforcement of the provision.
Barrett made a similar endorsement.
“I agree that states lack the ability to enforce Section 3 against presidential candidates. This principle is sufficient to resolve this issue, and I will not decide more than that. … In my opinion, this is not the time to exaggerate the dispute sharply. The court reached a settlement of a politically charged case during the turbulent season of the presidential elections. In these circumstances in particular, the court's writings should serve to lower the national temperature, not raise it. For our present purposes, our disagreements are much less important than our consensus: all nine justices agree on the outcome of this case. This is the message Americans must take home. “
The court moved unusually quickly to hear Trump's appeal and rule in his favor. His lawyers asked the court to review the Colorado case on January 3. Two days later, the appeal was approved, and arguments were held on February 8.
The justices ruled in Trump's favor in less than a month and in time for his votes to be counted in Colorado's primary election on Tuesday.
The court moved less quickly to resolve Trump's separate claim for presidential immunity from prosecution. As a result, the criminal trial over his role on January 6 may not take place until after the November election.
Last week, the court announced that it would hear Trump's immunity request, and set arguments for the week beginning April 22. Under that timeline, the justices are unlikely to rule before June.
By then, it may be too late to hold a trial before the November election.
The court's opinion Monday does not discuss or decide whether Trump engaged in insurrection after losing the election in November 2020.
The lawyers who filed the lawsuit in Colorado called it a victory of sorts.
“While the Supreme Court allowed Donald Trump back on the ballot for technical legal reasons, this was by no means a win for Trump. The Supreme Court had the opportunity to “This case is to exonerate Trump, and they chose not to do that.”
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 insurrection, which will remain live and contested in the public domain in the coming months,” said Derek Mueller, 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 general election.”
