Analysis of Trump's Landmark Victory in the 14th Amendment Case

The Supreme Court made a historic ruling on Monday, stating that former President Donald Trump cannot be removed from the ballot in Colorado or any other state. This decision dismissed a lawsuit that argued Trump had made himself ineligible for office due to his actions on January 6, 2021.

The court unanimously rejected the idea that Trump's actions fell under the 14th Amendment's "insurrectionist ban," affirming that individual states do not have the authority to exclude the former president from the ballot.

Mandatory Credit: Photo by MICHAEL REYNOLDS/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock (13604369b) The United States Supreme Court building in Washington, DC, USA, 01 November 2022. The Supreme Court has granted a temporary administrative stay preventing the release of tax returns of former US President Donald J. Trump that were sought by the House Ways and Means Committee. United State Supreme Court, Washington, Usa - 01 Nov 2022

The United States Supreme Court building in Washington, DC, USA, 01 November 2022. The Supreme Court has temporarily stopped the release of former US President Donald J. Trump's tax returns that were requested by the House Ways and Means Committee.

Michael Reynolds/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock

Related live-story

The Supreme Court has decided unanimously to allow Trump to remain on the Colorado ballot. However, they did not determine whether Trump was actually involved in inciting insurrection. The justices disagreed on the technical details of how the ban could be implemented, which could have significant implications.

The stunning decision from Colorado's top court last year, which found Trump guilty of engaging in an insurrection due to his remarks before the 2021 attack on the US Capitol, has been overturned by a recent opinion. The state court had ruled that Trump's actions violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, making him ineligible to be on the state's ballot.

Following Colorado's decision, Maine and Illinois also took steps to remove Trump from the ballot. However, with Monday's Supreme Court ruling, it seems that these efforts, along with others, to exclude the GOP frontrunner from the ballot will likely come to a halt.

States are allowed to disqualify individuals from holding or seeking state office. However, when it comes to federal offices like the presidency, states do not have the authority to enforce Section 3 of the Constitution.

Here's a breakdown of the court's opinion and its implications:

Bottom line: Trump will be on the ballots

The Supreme Court was clear in their decision. States cannot exclude a federal candidate, like a president, from the ballot based on the Constitution's "insurrectionist ban." The court stated that only Congress has the authority to enforce this provision, not the states.

The court's opinion stated that the idea of states having more freedom than Congress to determine the enforcement of Section 3 regarding federal officers is not believable.

This decision will have a significant impact beyond the current controversy in Colorado. It implies that any state attempting to remove Trump from the ballot would be exceeding its authority, likely putting an end to similar lawsuits nationwide.

The court's opinion was a big win for Trump, defeating a legal theory that had been a threat to his chances for a second term. It appears that the court has prevented a potential showdown in 2025.

The high court's ruling not only stopped states from enforcing the insurrectionist ban but also made it challenging to enforce at the federal level.

This is where the unity on the court diverged, as four justices - Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson - believed that their fellow justices had gone too far. Barrett, a conservative appointed by Trump, and the other three, who are part of the liberal wing, were in disagreement.

The three liberal justices expressed in a concurrence that the court's opinion restricts other potential methods of federal enforcement, as it now requires Congress to pass legislation first, which is unlikely to happen. They believe that by doing this, the majority is protecting all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their federal office holding.

To prevent a chaotic situation in Congress during the counting of electoral votes in 2025, the court's decision seemed to address concerns raised by legal experts. These experts were worried that a narrow ruling could result in uncertainty regarding whether lawmakers who oppose Trump could try to disqualify him after the election.

The Supreme Court's opinion did not specifically discuss whether Trump's actions on January 6 were considered an "insurrection," avoiding the debate that Colorado courts had to deal with.

The court's opinion, which was not signed, mentioned that Colorado lower courts had ruled that Trump's comments before the US Capitol attack could be seen as participating in an insurrection according to the Constitution. However, the court's opinion did not fully address this judgment.

This aligns with expectations from experts, who had anticipated that the justices would aim to address the ballot case in a limited manner without delving too deeply into Trump's conduct.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the liberal watchdog group that filed the suit, shared their thoughts on the decision in a statement.

Noah Bookbinder, the group’s president, expressed, "While the Supreme Court allowed Donald Trump back on the ballot for technical legal reasons, it should not be seen as a victory for Trump. The Supreme Court had the chance to clear Trump's name in this case, but they decided not to do so."

Barrett’s focus on the ‘national temperature’

Barrett used over half of her one-page concurrence to encourage the public to consider the bigger picture, despite the fact that four of the court’s members, including herself, had differing opinions on the case.

The conservative justice emphasized the importance of maintaining a respectful tone despite differences with the liberal justices. She mentioned that amidst the heated atmosphere of a Presidential election, it is crucial for the writings of the court to calm the national discourse rather than fueling further division.

She continued: “Despite our differences, what matters most is that all nine Justices are in agreement on the outcome of this case. This is the key message for Americans to remember.”

The Colorado dispute was among the notable Trump-related cases brought before the court this term, possibly leading to lower approval ratings for the justices. A recent poll conducted last month, around the time of the case hearing, revealed that only 40% of the public approved of the high court.

The court’s three liberals – Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson – criticized the majority for the breadth of the opinion. They believed that the issue of Trump’s eligibility could have been resolved more simply by ruling that states cannot enforce the insurrectionist ban on their own.

The court's opinion in a sensitive case that called for judicial restraint has been criticized for abandoning that approach. The three individuals expressed their discontent over the majority opinion's restriction on federal and state enforcement of the insurrection ban. They pointed out that this decision was not part of the case before the Supreme Court and could potentially protect all alleged insurrectionists from facing future challenges.

Editor's P/S:

The Supreme Court's decision to allow former President Trump to remain on the ballot in Colorado and other states is a significant victory for Trump and his supporters. The court's unanimous ruling affirms that states do not have the authority to exclude candidates from the ballot based on the 14th Amendment's "insurrectionist ban." This decision has implications beyond the current controversy in Colorado, as it likely puts an end to similar lawsuits nationwide.

While the court's opinion did not specifically address whether Trump's actions on January 6 were considered an "insurrection," it did not fully address the judgment made by lower Colorado courts. This omission has led some legal experts to believe that the court may have been attempting to avoid a broader debate about Trump's conduct. Despite the court's decision, the ongoing legal challenges and public scrutiny surrounding Trump's actions on January 6 are likely to continue.