Supreme Court rules Trump can stay on the ballot
Justices say power to ban candidates lies with Congress
The United States Supreme Court yesterday unanimously restored Donald Trump to 2024 presidential primary ballots, rejecting state attempts to ban the Republican former President over the Capitol riot.
The justices ruled a day before the Super Tuesday primaries that states cannot invoke a post-Civil War constitutional provision to keep presidential candidates from appearing on ballots. That power resides with Congress, the court wrote in an unsigned opinion. The outcome ends efforts in
Colorado, Illinois, Maine and elsewhere to kick Trump, the frontrunner for his party’s nomination, off the ballot because of his attempts to seize power after losing in the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, culminating in the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold expressed disappointment in the court’s decision as she acknowledged that “Donald Trump is an eligible candidate on Colorado’s 2024 Presidential Primary”.
Trump’s case was the first at the Supreme Court dealing with a provision of the 14th Amendment that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.
Colorado’s Supreme Court, in a first-of-its-kind ruling, had decided that the provision, Section 3, could be applied to Trump, who that court found incited the Capitol attack. No court before had applied Section 3 to a presidential candidate.
The justices sidestepped the politically fraught issue of insurrection in their opinions yesterday, leading some Trump critics to point out that the court failed to absolve him of responsibility for the Capitol riot.
The court held that states may bar candidates from state office. “But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency,” the court wrote.
While all nine justices agreed Trump should be on the ballot, there was sharp disagreement from the three liberal justices and a milder disagreement from conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett that their
colleagues went too far in determining what Congress must do to disqualify someone from federal office.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson said they agreed that allowing the
Colorado decision to stand could create a “chaotic state by state patchwork” but said they disagreed with the majority’s finding a disqualification for insurrection can only happen when Congress enacts legislation.
“Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President,” the three justices wrote in a joint opinion.
It’s unclear whether the ruling leaves open the possibility that Congress could refuse to certify the election of Trump or any other presidential candidate it sees as having violated Section 3.
Derek Muller, a law professor at Notre Dame University, said “it seems no”, noting that the liberals complained that the majority ruling forecloses any other ways for Congress to enforce the provision. Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California-Los Angeles, wrote that it’s frustratingly unclear what the bounds might be on Congress.
“We may well have a nasty, nasty post-election period in which Congress tries to disqualify Trump but the Supreme Court says Congress exceeded its powers,” he wrote.
Trump had been kicked off the ballots in Colorado, Maine and Illinois, but all three rulings were on hold awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision. The case is the court’s most direct involvement in a presidential election since Bush v Gore, a decision delivered a quarter-century ago that effectively handed the 2000 election to Republican George W Bush. And it’s just one of several cases involving Trump directly or that could affect his chances of becoming President again, including a case scheduled for arguments in late April about whether he can be criminally prosecuted on election interference charges, including his role in the Capitol riot. The timing of the high court’s intervention has raised questions about whether Trump will be tried before the November election.