On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling stating that states lack the authority to bar former President Donald Trump from running for office due to his involvement in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attacks. In an opinion without a designated author, most justices concluded that the enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment falls under the jurisdiction of Congress alone, not individual states.
This section, established after the Civil War, aims to disqualify individuals who previously held federal or state government positions but later supported the Confederacy, from seeking federal office.
All nine justices concurred that Colorado lacks the authority to remove Trump from the ballot. However, four justices—Justice Amy Coney Barrett in a separate opinion and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in a joint opinion—asserted that their fellow justices should have concluded the matter there and refrained from further decisions.
Just one day before Super Tuesday, during which 16 states and one territory will conduct their primary elections, the court issued its decision. Trump currently maintains a significant lead in the Republican nomination race.
The legal dispute leading to Monday’s ruling originated last year in a Colorado state court. A group of voters in that state contended that Trump was ineligible to be listed on the ballot under Section 3. This section stipulates that no individual shall hold various positions, including being a Senator, Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, if they had previously sworn, “as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States,” to uphold the Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the federal government.
A state trial court determined that Trump had “engaged in insurrection,” yet it dismissed the voters’ plea to remove him from the ballot. This court ruling stated that the presidency is not an “office … under the United States,” and the president is not an “officer of the United States.”
The Colorado Supreme Court responded to voter appeals by ruling that Trump cannot be listed on the ballot under Section 3. However, they temporarily suspended their decision to allow Trump the opportunity to appeal to the Supreme Court, which agreed to review the case earlier this year.
In a 13-page opinion released around 10 a.m. and unsigned, the justices overturned the state supreme court’s ruling. They argued that the 14th Amendment aimed to enhance federal authority over states, with Section 3 specifically intended to prevent former Confederates from regaining power post-Civil War.
The justices emphasized that before disqualifying an individual under Section 3, there must be a determination of its applicability to that person. They highlighted that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment grants Congress the authority to make such determinations through “appropriate legislation” to enforce the amendment. The court underscored that states lack the power to enforce Section 3 against federal office candidates, nor is there historical precedent of states doing so since the amendment’s ratification.
Additionally, the court emphasized that permitting states to enforce Section 3 against candidates running for federal office could lead to various complications. Primarily, while Section 5 mandates that any legislation enacted by Congress to implement Section 3 must be tailored to specifically address the conduct targeted by Section 3, state enforcement of Section 3 would not be subject to the same restriction. The court concluded that the idea of granting states more latitude than Congress to determine how Section 3 should be enforced regarding federal offices is not credible.
Allowing states to enforce Section 3 for federal candidates might create a situation where a candidate could be deemed ineligible in some states but not in others, based on the same conduct and factual evidence. This could result in a “patchwork” scenario that significantly alters voter behavior, party strategies, and state actions nationwide, leading to chaos. The court asserted that nothing in the Constitution mandates tolerating such disorder.
Furthermore, the court did not address certain other issues raised by Trump in his brief regarding whether he “engaged in insurrection” on January 6th.
Barrett authored a concise one-page opinion, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. She believed that the court’s ruling against states enforcing Section 3 on presidential candidates was adequate to settle the case. Barrett indicated that the court shouldn’t have delved into the complex issue of whether federal legislation was the sole means of enforcing Section 3.
In a rare move, Barrett seemed to critique the tone of the joint opinion authored by Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. She suggested that “this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency,” especially given the politically charged nature of the issue amidst a Presidential election season. Barrett emphasized that Court writings should aim to lower the national temperature, not escalate tensions.
In their six-page joint opinion, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson concurred with the outcome of the per curiam opinion – that Colorado couldn’t disqualify Trump – but disagreed with its rationale. They acknowledged that allowing Colorado to remove Trump from the ballot would lead to a chaotic state-by-state inconsistency.
However, they argued that the majority shouldn’t have ventured into determining who can enforce Section 3 and how. They asserted that nothing in Section 3 mandated enforcement solely through legislation enacted by Congress under Section 5. By addressing “many unsettled questions about Section 3,” the three justices criticized the majority for unnecessarily limiting the application of Section 3 to prevent an oathbreaking insurrectionist from assuming the presidency.
On December 28, Maine’s Secretary of State, Shenna Bellows, declared Trump ineligible for the state’s ballot. However, a state court judge temporarily halted the ruling following the Supreme Court’s decision to review Trump’s appeal in the Colorado case. Similarly, an Illinois judge made a comparable ruling last week, which is also pending the outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings. While not explicitly stated, it’s presumed that these decisions will be overturned in light of Monday’s ruling.
The decision on Monday follows the justices’ recent agreement to hear another case involving the former president. Last Wednesday, the justices announced they would hear arguments in late April regarding whether Trump could be prosecuted for allegedly conspiring to overturn the 2020 election results. A decision on this matter is anticipated by late June or early July.
Read More: O’Connor’s estate asks Trump not to use her music
Disclaimer:
This content is AI-generated using IFTTT AI Content Creator. While we strive for accuracy, it’s a tool for rapid updates. We’re committed to filtering information, not reproducing or endorsing misinformation. – Jomotoday for more information visit privacy policy
Leave a Comment