On Monday, the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously 9-0 in Trump v. Anderson that US states do not have the power to block presidential candidates on the grounds they engaged in insurrection, reversing a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that had permitted the state to exclude Trump from its primary election ballot. The ruling ensures that Trump will appear on 2024 primary election ballots in Colorado and other states including Maine and Illinois, which had harbored similar legal challenges to Trump’s eligibility.
Sticking point: The ruling also determines that Section 3 of the US Constitution's 14th Amendment, which prohibits certain individuals that have engaged in insurrection or rebellion from holding “any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,” may only be enforced against federal officeholders and candidates by US Congress (and no other federal body).
The court majority justifies this determination in part by pointing to a separate section of that same 14th Amendment – Section 5 – which states that “Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
4 of the justices (3 liberal, one conservative) expressed disagreement with the majority’s decision to limit Section 3 enforcement to Congress, but diverged on their tone. The 3 liberal justices were more demonstrative in their disagreement while the conservative justice was critical of the liberal justice’s outspokenness:
- “Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President...we protest the majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision.” (3 liberal justices: Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor.)
- “The majority’s choice of a different path leaves the remaining Justices with a choice of how to respond. In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency.” (Conservative justice: Amy Coney Barrett.)
For context: The Supreme Court focused on deciding whether states have the right to exclude presidential candidates from ballots. It did not venture into determining 1) whether the president qualifies as an “officer of the United States” and should therefore be considered under Section 3 or 2) whether Trump engaged in insurrection. Both issues played a role in lower court proceedings within Colorado and inspired defense arguments from Trump’s team.
Debate on the Supreme Court’s ruling centers around its justifications, limits, and future implications on presidential elections. Below are notable viewpoints to help you learn more and form a viewpoint of your own.
Notable viewpoints
SUPPORTIVE OF THE RULING
The ruling rightly prohibits states from enforcing Section 3 against presidential candidates.
- The 14th Amendment was originally intended to expand federal power at the expense of states and “nothing in the Constitution delegates to the States any power to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates.” (Summarized from the ruling.)
- As Supreme Court precedent such as Anderson v. Celebrezze emphasizes, state-by-state determinations of presidential candidate eligibility “would be quite unlikely to yield a uniform answer consistent with the basic principle that ‘the President . . . represent[s] all the voters in the Nation.’” (Summarized from the ruling.)
- The ruling helps prevent the chaos that would arise from separate states enacting their own presidential ballot rules and protects the unity of federalism.
The ruling rightly limits federal enforcement of Section 3 to Congress.
- Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which states “Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of [the 14th Amendment],” explicitly “empowers Congress to prescribe” how Section 3 determinations should be made. (Summarized from the ruling.)
- The court rightfully acknowledged that the initial context for creating Section 3 was in barring Confederacy supporters from federal office, and that newer contexts should require specific congressional legislation.
- The plain text of the 14th Amendment makes it clear that “without some enabling act of Congress, it’s not up to the States.”
The ruling serves as a victory against politically-motivated lawfare waged by Democrats.
- The ruling is a victory for constitutional clarity and will help ensure the presidency is decided by voters rather than partisans using lawfare to block a candidate they oppose.
- Democrats were likely hoping for the option of challenging Trump’s eligibility between election and inauguration should he win the presidency, and the Supreme Court’s ruling effectively prevents that from happening.
- The failed attempt to disqualify Trump will serve as a rallying point for him and his supporters against the “Northeastern, elitist law-professor types” trying to “deny the American voters a choice.”
Limiting enforcement of Section 3 to Congress will help stabilize election outcomes.
- Should Trump win the election, the Supreme Court’s determination that only Congress has the power to enforce Section 3 through specific legislation will help avert potential challenges to the newly elected president’s legitimacy.
OPPOSED TO THE RULING OR CERTAIN ASPECTS
The ruling goes too far in limiting federal enforcement of Section 3 to Congress.
- While it is appropriate to prevent states from enforcing Section 3, the court majority went “beyond the necessities of this case” in determining that “disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation.” (Summarized from concurring opinion by the 3 liberal justices.)
- “Section 5 gives Congress the ‘power to enforce [the Amendment] by appropriate legislation,’” but it does not require it. “The majority is left with next to no support for its requirement that a Section 3 disqualification can occur only pursuant to legislation enacted for that purpose.” (Summarized from concurring opinion by the 3 liberal justices.)
- It is bizarre for the Supreme Court to claim Section 3, specifically, requires “enabling legislation” to enforce it when the remainder of the 14th Amendment – including clauses for equal protection, freedom from enslavement, and due process – is assumed to be “self-executing.”
The Supreme Court’s decision is biased toward protecting Trump.
- The conservative-majority Supreme Court’s decision, paired with its other actions to effectively delay Trump’s criminal trial related to attempts to overturn the 2020 election, amount to political maneuvering shielding Trump from disqualification.
- By specifying that Congress alone can enforce Section 3 through legislation, the majority decides “novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy,” and “attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.” (Summarized from concurring opinion by the 3 liberal justices.)
- The conservative Supreme Court justices use the veil of "originalism” to bend interpretations of the Constitution to their personal and political preferences when any reasonable interpretation of Section 3 should bar Trump from being president.
The determination that only Congress can enforce Section 3 effectively removes it from the Constitution.
- “We don’t have a Congress that can agree on something like this, so they essentially took out their black sharpie and crossed Section 3 out of the Constitution by putting this additional hurdle up.” (Kimberly Wehle, Law Professor at University of Baltimore.)
- By ruling that Section 3 requires congressional action to enforce, the Supreme Court effectively erased its existence until such action is taken and sets a low bar for insurrectionists to hold presidential office.
States should have the right to exclude candidates from the presidential ballot.
- “My larger reaction is disappointment. I do believe that states should be able under our constitution to bar oath breaking insurrectionists.” (Jena Griswold, Colorado Secretary of State.)
- States have historically been trusted to exclude candidates from presidential ballots based on other disqualifying criteria (e.g., age, residency status) as outlined in other parts of the Constitution; therefore, states should be allowed to exclude candidates based on Section 3’s “insurrectionist” disqualification.
MIXED VIEWPOINT
The Supreme Court should have been more prescriptive in its ruling.
- By failing to rule on whether the president qualifies as an “officer of the United States” under Section 3 and whether Trump engaged in insurrection, the Supreme Court left the door open to “another January 6” should challenges to a victorious Trump arise after the election.
- The ruling leaves out specifics such as whether Congress could refuse to count electoral votes for Trump after the election in the event it determines he engaged in insurrection.
From the source
Read more from select primary sources and a summary of amicus briefs filed in the case:
- Supreme Court ruling: Trump v. Anderson
- Trump’s defense: Brief of petitioner Donald J. Trump
- US Constitution: 14th Amendment
- SCOTUSblog: Summary list of amicus briefs
Be heard
We want to hear from you! Share your perspective on the Supreme Court’s ruling and we may feature it in our socials or future newsletters. Reply to this email in the format of your choosing (video, audio, or text). Below are topic ideas to consider.
- Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s decision to bar states from excluding presidential candidates from ballots?
- Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that only Congress can enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against federal officeholders?
- Where do you see strengths in viewpoints that you generally disagree with?
Give us your feedback! Please let us know how we can improve.
#BTW
An inspirational ballad from English rocker Sam Fender.
