With its decision on Monday that states cannot bar former President Donald Trump from running for office due to his conduct prior to the Capitol attack on January 6, the Supreme Court awarded the former president a resounding victory. This decision quickly concluded a case that would have significant ramifications for the 2024 election.
In an unsigned decision with no dissent, the court overturned the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, which had held that Trump was ineligible to run for president again under the terms of section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
According to the court, the Colorado Supreme Court erroneously believed that states have the authority to decide whether a presidential candidate is disqualified under a 14th Amendment clause of the Constitution.
The decision establishes that Congress, not the states, must establish guidelines for enforcing the 14th Amendment’s provisions. As a result, not just Colorado but all states are covered by the ruling.
“Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the states, responsible for enforcing section 3 against all federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse,” the court wrote.
Only one day before the Colorado primary, a choice is made.
Trump celebrated the verdict minutes after it was rendered, saying, “Big win for America!!!” in an all-capitals post on his social media platform.
Not only will the ruling guarantee Trump’s inclusion on the Colorado ballot, but it will also put a halt to challenges of this kind. Only Maine and Illinois have so far adopted similar policies to Colorado. Both of those rulings, like the Colorado ruling, were placed on hold.
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold confirmed in a statement that states are not allowed to impose Section 3 of the 14th Amendment on candidates running for federal office. This ruling makes Donald Trump a viable contender in the Colorado 2024 presidential primary.
The decision forewarned of the perils of a disorganized set of decisions across the nation that could destabilize elections if state officials were allowed to freely choose who could be included on the presidential ballot.
“The result could well be that a single candidate would be declared ineligible in some states, but not others, based on the same conduct,” the court opinion stated.
There were disagreements about the case’s outcome among the court’s conservative majority of 6-3, despite the majority vote being unanimous. In a jointly written concurring opinion, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, the three liberal justices, expressed dissatisfaction about the court’s decision to determine how Congress may implement section 3 and said that it had decided more than was necessary.
Though she did not concur with the liberal justices’ view, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett acknowledged that the court went beyond what was necessary.
The ruling, according to the liberal justices, would “insulate” Trump against “future controversy.”
