Supreme Court Decision: Trump to Remain on Colorado Ballot Despite 14th Amendment Challenge

The Supreme Court has decided that former President Donald Trump can be on the ballot in Colorado. This ruling comes after a lot of discussion about whether Trump broke the "insurrectionist clause" in the 14th Amendment, which caused controversy.

This decision is a big win for Trump, as it helps him in his campaign against President Joe Biden. Even though this ruling doesn't affect the criminal cases Trump is currently dealing with, like the federal election subversion case related to the events of January 6, 2021.

The court agreed that Trump could not be taken off the ballot without a unanimous decision.

However, there was a split among the justices on how far-reaching the decision should be. A majority of 5-4 ruled that no state had the power to remove a federal candidate from any ballot, while four justices believed that the court should have placed limitations on its decision.

A majority of five justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, stated that states cannot prevent a federal officer, particularly the president, from being on the ballot without Congress passing a law first.

According to the opinion, states are allowed to disqualify individuals from holding or seeking state office. However, they do not have the authority under the Constitution to apply Section 3 to federal positions, especially the Presidency.

The majority emphasized that the Constitution does not grant States the authority to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates.

Trump celebrated the decision as a "BIG WIN FOR AMERICA!!!" on social media.

Four justices say the court has gone too far

Four of the justices disagreed on the scope of the decision.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed their opinion in a concurring statement. They believe that the majority's decision closes off other possible ways for federal enforcement. They also stated that they do not agree with a ruling that unnecessarily decides significant and challenging issues.

In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointed out that the case does not force the Supreme Court to tackle the complex issue of whether federal legislation is the only method for enforcing Section 3.

The five conservative justices took a stronger stance compared to the other four, according to Steve Vladeck, a Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

Vladeck explained, "The majority opinion states that states cannot enforce Section 3 against any potential federal officeholders, not just presidential candidates. Additionally, it mandates that Congress must pass specific legislation to enforce Section 3, eliminating other potential methods of enforcement by the federal government. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson did not express disagreement with these points, but they chose not to address them."

Using the 14th Amendment as a longshot strategy

The Supreme Court's ruling on Trump's actions on January 6 came just before Super Tuesday, when 16 states and territories, including Colorado, will have nominating contests.

Using the 14th Amendment to stop Trump from running for office was seen as unlikely, but gained traction after a victory in Colorado's highest court in December. This case is now headed to the US Supreme Court. Following this decision, Trump was also taken off the ballot in Maine and Illinois.

Courts and legal experts had been discussing the meaning of a key provision in the post-Civil War 14th Amendment for months. This provision, known as Section 3, prevents officials who supported the Constitution and then participated in insurrection from holding office again. It was originally created to prevent former Confederates from regaining power.

There was a lot of confusion surrounding the ban's interpretation and how it should be enforced. During the arguments on February 8, both conservative and liberal justices questioned the fairness of Colorado providing answers to these questions for the whole nation.

Trump has openly mocked the lawsuits based on the 14th Amendment that have emerged nationwide. He frequently criticizes them as an unconstitutional attack led by Democrats who are trying to remove him from the ballot instead of competing with him in the November elections. His legal team argues that it would be against American values to deny voters the chance to decide if Trump should serve another term in the White House.

Challenges against Trump under the 14th Amendment were dismissed in Minnesota, Michigan, Massachusetts, and Oregon due to procedural reasons. However, in Colorado, a series of state court rulings led to a case that Trump later appealed to the US Supreme Court in January.

The lawsuit in Colorado was filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal watchdog group, in September. The case was brought on behalf of six Republican and independent voters, including trailblazing former Republican state legislator Norma Anderson, who is 91 years old. They sued Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, seeking to have Trump's name removed from the state's GOP primary ballot.

A state district judge in Colorado recently oversaw a trial that lasted a week. In November, the judge determined that although Trump was involved in an insurrection, he could remain on the ballot since the ban did not specifically target presidents. However, the Colorado Supreme Court, with a close 4-3 decision, upheld the ruling that Trump played a role in the Capitol attack and stated that the ban did apply to presidents.

Out of all the states, only three had taken Trump off the ballot due to the "insurrectionist ban."

The top election official in Maine, like Colorado, decided that Trump cannot hold office due to constitutional restrictions. Trump is challenging this decision, with the state court putting things on hold until the Supreme Court addresses the Colorado case.

Similarly, in Illinois, a judge used the same January 6 reasoning to disqualify Trump from the state's ballot. However, any action based on this ruling is on hold while awaiting potential appeals.

It seemed like Trump had the upper hand during the Supreme Court arguments. Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh, who are known to lean conservative, asked friendly questions to Trump's lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell. However, when the lawyer representing the voters spoke, the questioning became more intense and persistent.

Not only conservatives seemed to be critical: Justices Kagan, nominated by Obama, and Jackson, chosen by Biden, also focused on some of the points Trump had made in his arguments.

Kagan asked Jason Murray, "Why should one state have the power to choose the President for the whole country, not just their own citizens?"

This story has been updated with new information.

Editor's P/S:

The Supreme Court's decision to allow Trump on the ballot in Colorado is a significant victory for the former president and his supporters. It is a setback for those who believe that Trump should be held accountable for his role in the January 6th Capitol attack. The decision also raises questions about the scope of the 14th Amendment's "insurrectionist clause" and the power of states to enforce it.

It remains to be seen whether Trump will ultimately be successful in his bid to regain the presidency. However, the Supreme Court's decision is a reminder that he remains a formidable political force. It also highlights the deep divisions within the country over the events of January 6th and their aftermath.