Key Constitutional Questions Remain Unanswered as Trump's Name Appears on the Ballot

Former President Donald Trump’s name will be on the ballot this year as voters in all states pick a president. The Supreme Court's 13-page opinion on Monday clarified Trump's eligibility for a second term. However, some questions remain unresolved and could eventually return to the justices.

Democratic lawmakers may have the ability to disqualify Trump next January if he wins the November election. Additionally, there is a question of whether a state can prevent a president from seeking a third term, which goes against the 22nd Amendment.

There was some uncertainty following the decision, which was not unexpected. The Supreme Court was working quickly to resolve a contentious issue, aiming to reach a consensus among justices who typically have differing views on important political and cultural issues.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett was nominated by President Donald Trump to the US Supreme Court. The announcement was made in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, DC on September 26, 2020. If confirmed by the US Senate, Barrett will fill the vacancy left by the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on September 18.

Olivier Douliery/AFP/Getty Images

Related article

Amy Coney Barrett disagreed with the majority on the Trump issue. However, she criticized the liberals instead.

In the end, all the justices reached a unanimous decision. They agreed that states cannot disqualify presidential candidates based on the insurrectionist ban in the 14th Amendment. Although they had different opinions on the reasoning behind this decision.

“There are still many unanswered questions,” said Donald Sherman, chief counsel at the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The group filed the suit on behalf of six Republican and independent voters who wanted to remove Trump from the Colorado ballot.

Sherman expressed his doubts about the court's solution, stating, "I'm not convinced that the court's solution is as effective as they believe it to be." He added, "They are simply hoping that the problem won't resurface."

Trump praised the decision during his speech at his Mar-a-Lago club, calling it "well crafted". He expressed his belief that it will help unite the country. According to him, it is not fair to remove someone from a race just because their opponent wants it that way.

Maybe because of the short timeline or the goal of reaching a unanimous decision, the judges didn't thoroughly explore every aspect of the case. Now, let's take a look at some of the unresolved issues.

One of the unresolved issues is how to handle candidates for state office who are labeled as 'insurrectionists'.

The Colorado state courts faced ballot challenges against Trump, but the justices did not address key questions about defining an "insurrection" or how to determine if a candidate participated in one.

By avoiding a discussion on Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election, the majority left room for uncertainty, which could be significant in future disputes involving "insurrectionists" running for state office.

The Supreme Court has stated that states have the authority to disqualify individuals from holding or seeking state office. However, there is no set plan for handling these situations, so state courts will need to find a way to resolve them independently.

Getty Images

Related article

The much-anticipated general election has arrived, with the main contenders being Trump and Biden.

According to Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, cases involving state office holders are still undecided. Questions about what constitutes insurrection, the actions involved, and the necessary due process guarantees may need to be addressed in the future.

An appeal is currently pending at the Supreme Court from a former New Mexico county commissioner who was removed from office due to his involvement in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.

In 2022, Cowboys for Trump founder and convicted Capitol rioter Couy Griffin was removed from office, marking the first enforcement of the "insurrectionist ban" since 1919. This is currently the only instance where the ban has been successfully applied to someone for their actions related to January 6.

Can a future constitutional crisis be avoided? Griffin was removed from office by a state court, but his appeal was dismissed by New Mexico's top court. He then took his case to the US Supreme Court. However, the justices have not taken any action on his appeal yet, possibly because they are focusing on resolving Trump's case first.

Some legal scholars had warned that before the Supreme Court ruled on the Trump case, there was a risk of a major constitutional crisis. They were concerned that if the decision did not clarify Congress's role in disqualifying a candidate for insurrection under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, it could lead to serious problems.

According to this theory, if Trump were to win the election, Democrats might try to disqualify him before the electoral votes are counted in January 2025. This process, which was previously seen as routine, was disrupted by pro-Trump rioters during the attack on the US Capitol in 2021.

If Trump is convicted in any of the four criminal cases pending against him, political pressure to do so would likely increase. This is especially true as his federal election subversion trial timeline is getting closer to the November election.

Some experts believe that the court's decision prevented this scenario by stating that Congress must first pass laws outlining the process for disqualifying a candidate. However, given the current political divisions in Congress, achieving this requirement would be highly unlikely. It's worth noting that only five justices supported this part of the opinion.

"It seems like the court is restricting Congress's ability to enforce Section 3 through laws. This could also restrict Congress if it tries to reject electoral votes," explained Derek Muller, a professor of election law at Notre Dame Law School.

Video Ad Feedback

Retired judge predicted SCOTUS wouldn't allow Trump on the ballot. Hear his reaction to their ruling

02:26

• Source:

CNN

But some saw ambiguity in the opinion – and the possibility of a constitutional showdown.

"The opinion is unclear on what happens after the election if Trump wins," shared Gerard Magliocca, a law professor at Indiana University and a leading expert on the ban who backed Trump's disqualification.

He added, "At best, it's uncertain. So, if Trump does win, there might be attempts to challenge the results. This could potentially create more challenges and issues during the presidential transition, making it a more difficult process if Trump emerges victorious."

What other qualifications are needed for someone to run for office?

Leading up to the oral arguments on February 8 in the Trump dispute, a major question was whether states have the authority to remove a candidate who is clearly ineligible from the ballot before an election, or if the Constitution's eligibility rules only apply to whether that candidate can hold office.

The Constitution states that a president must be at least 35 years old. Can a state remove a 25-year-old candidate from the ballot for being ineligible? What if a president tries to run for a third term, going against the 22nd Amendment? These unusual scenarios were brought up in the Trump ballot cases.

During the Trump ballot cases, the six Colorado voters who sued Trump pointed out a 2012 case involving a presidential candidate born in Guyana. This raised concerns about the requirement in the Constitution for the president to be a "natural born citizen."

Former president Donald Trump delivers remarks at a campaign rally at the SNHU Arena in Manchester, New Hampshire, in January 2024.

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post/Getty Images

Related article

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was a judge on the Denver-based 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals, mentioned that states can prevent candidates from being on the ballot if they are not eligible to serve. However, the Supreme Court did not discuss this issue or provide any hints in their opinion on Monday.

Somin pointed out that the majority's reasoning on states not being able to disqualify individuals could also be applied to other electoral requirements. He mentioned that a candidate trying to avoid these qualifications set by the Constitution would likely not succeed. However, Somin highlighted that the 14th Amendment specifically grants Congress the authority to enforce the provisions of the amendment. The conservative justices on the court acknowledged this in their opinion, referring to the provision that gives Congress the power to enforce the ban on insurrectionists.

The other eligibility requirements, as outlined in Article II and other constitutional amendments, do not have the same conditions attached.

Somin pointed out that this information is not clearly stated in the majority's opinion. He mentioned that there could be potential legal disputes arising from this lack of clarity.

Editor's P/S:

The Supreme Court's ruling on Donald Trump's eligibility for a second term presents a complex and uncertain legal landscape. While the justices unanimously agreed that states cannot disqualify presidential candidates based on the insurrectionist ban, many questions remain unanswered. The court's avoidance of key issues, such as defining "insurrection" and determining how to handle state office candidates who are labeled as insurrectionists, may lead to further disputes and legal challenges.

The Supreme Court's decision highlights the delicate balance between protecting the right to vote and ensuring that ineligible candidates do not hold office. However, the lack of clear guidance in the opinion could create a path for future constitutional crises. It remains to be seen how the justices will address these unresolved issues, particularly in the context of Trump's possible victory in the November election. The court's ruling has opened up a Pandora's box of legal complexities that will undoubtedly shape the future of American elections.