United States Supreme Court Unanimously Reinstates Trump on Colorado Ballot, Ruling State Lacked Authority
In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court has restored former President Donald Trump to the Republican primary ballot in Colorado. The ruling overrides the state’s attempt to disqualify him from the ballot due to his actions during the January 6th Capitol siege three years ago.
The highly anticipated opinion from the nation’s highest court comes just weeks after oral arguments were heard in this politically charged case, which thrust the Supreme Court into the midst of the 2024 presidential election cycle. Notably, this ruling precedes another upcoming case in which the justices will determine whether Trump enjoys blanket immunity for his conduct on January 6th.
Reacting swiftly, Trump took to his Truth Social platform, hailing the decision as a “BIG WIN FOR AMERICA!!!” In subsequent remarks from his Mar-a-Lago resort, the former president proclaimed that the Supreme Court’s judgment “will go a long way in bringing our country together.”
The case originated from a complaint brought by six Colorado voters who argued that Trump had violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, a post-Civil War provision that prohibits individuals who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution from engaging in insurrection or rebellion. Despite being on the books for over 150 years, this clause had never before been invoked against a presidential candidate, with only eight instances of its application since the 1860s.
This scant precedent ultimately contributed to the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to reverse the Colorado disqualification. As articulated in the opinion, “Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.”
The ruling clarified that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to expand federal authority at the expense of state power. As such, the Constitution “empowers Congress” to determine the appropriate application of the “severe” penalty of disqualification.
While the justices reached a consensus on reinstating Trump to the Colorado ballot, there was some divergence in their reasoning. The court’s three liberal justices – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – penned a separate opinion criticizing the majority for unnecessarily grappling with “momentous and difficult issues” and creating “a special rule for the insurrection disability.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, also filed a concurring opinion, asserting that the court need not have addressed “the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle” for enforcing the insurrection clause. She advocated for a more tempered approach, writing, “In my judgment this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency.”
Barrett implored her colleagues to “turn the national temperature down, not up,” given the “volatile season of a Presidential election” and the decision’s potential to inflame an already “politically charged issue.”
Legal experts had widely anticipated the court’s ultimate ruling following the oral arguments, where attorneys for the Colorado voters encountered formidable skepticism across the ideological spectrum.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, another Trump appointee, questioned whether the plaintiffs’ position would improperly “disenfranchise voters to a significant degree.” Justice Elena Kagan echoed this concern, asking, “Why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States?”
Chief Justice John Roberts envisioned a future where states could selectively boot candidates from opposing parties, resulting in “a handful of states…decid[ing] the presidential election” – a “pretty daunting consequence,” in his assessment.
The case garnered immense national interest, prompting a deluge of amicus curiae briefs from legal scholars, election administrators, and advocacy groups urging the court to issue a decisive ruling before millions more Americans cast their ballots.
Janai Nelson, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, criticized the majority for disregarding the “plain text of the 14th Amendment,” effectively granting “constitutional immunity to insurrectionists, absent legislation from Congress.”
Across the country, the question of Trump’s eligibility has played out differently in various states. Maine’s secretary of state found Trump disqualified, but that decision was stayed pending appeal. An Illinois judge also temporarily barred Trump, awaiting guidance from the Supreme Court.
According to Derek Muller, an election law professor at Notre Dame, today’s ruling “shuts the door on any exclusion of Trump from the ballot in any state, either in the primary or the general.”
Jonathan Mitchell, Trump’s attorney, had advanced multiple arguments for keeping the former president on the ballot, including claims that Trump was exempt from the 14th Amendment’s oath provision and that Congress must first act to clarify disqualification procedures before any candidate can be removed.
Conversely, the Colorado voters’ lawyer, Jason Murray, maintained that the amendment’s drafters intended it as “a shield to protect our Constitution for all time going forward, and so this is not some dusty relic.”
Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which supported the legal challenge against Trump, noted that the Supreme Court did not overturn factual findings that Trump had incited an “insurrection” on January 6th.
At his Mar-a-Lago event, Trump leveled unsubstantiated accusations against President Biden, alleging – without evidence – that the incumbent had “weaponized the Justice Department” against him, likely alluding to the various criminal investigations targeting the former president. Trump exhorted Biden, “Don’t use prosecutors and judges to go after your opponent.”
However, there is no credible evidence to support Trump’s claim of White House interference in the judicial process, as the U.S. Justice Department operates independently from the executive branch.
As the 2024 presidential race intensifies, this Supreme Court decision has cleared a significant legal hurdle for Donald Trump’s candidacy. Yet, the broader implications of the January 6th insurrection – and Trump’s potential culpability – remain subjects of ongoing scrutiny, both in the courts and the court of public opinion.
Source A unanimous Supreme Court restores Trump to the Colorado ballot. Published in NPR BY Carrie Johnson.