Supreme Court Rules States Cannot Disqualify Trump from Ballot

Photo of author
Written By Vikas Jangid

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur pulvinar ligula augue . 

Supreme Court Ruling: States Lack Authority to Bar Donald Trump from Ballot

The Supreme Court issued a ruling on Monday stating that states lack the authority to bar former President Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot due to his involvement in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attacks.

In an unsigned opinion, a majority of the justices asserted that only Congress, not individual states, possesses the power to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment was established after the Civil War to disqualify individuals from holding office if they previously served in the federal or state government before supporting the Confederacy.

Source: Twitter/Caitlyn Kim 

Court Decision Impacts Super Tuesday

The unanimous decision by all nine justices concluded that Colorado could not remove Trump from the ballot. However, four justices, including Justice Amy Coney Barrett in a separate opinion and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in a joint opinion, argued that the Supreme court should have halted at this point without further deliberation.

Background and Legal Dispute

The legal dispute originated in a Colorado state court last year, where a group of voters contended that Trump was ineligible for the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

The state trial court acknowledged that Donald Trump had "engaged in insurrection" but declined the voters' request to remove him from the ballot. The case was then appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of disqualification but suspended its ruling to provide Trump an opportunity to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Court’s Rationale and Majority Opinion

In a 13-page unsigned opinion released early Monday, the justices reversed the Colorado Supreme Court's decision. They emphasized that while the 14th Amendment intended to expand federal authority at the states' expense, Section 3's enforcement is solely within Congress's purview.

The court stressed that before disqualifying someone under Section 3, a determination must be made, a power bestowed upon Congress by Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.

Concurring Opinions and Dissent

Justice Barrett concurred in part, emphasizing that states cannot enforce Section 3 against presidential candidates. However, she criticized the Supreme court's involvement in deciding how Section 3 should be enforced.

Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson concurred with the outcome but disagreed with the majority's rationale, arguing that the court exceeded its jurisdiction in delineating how Section 3 should bar individuals from the presidency.

Implications and Future Cases

Monday's ruling impacts similar cases in Maine and Illinois, where Trump's eligibility for the ballot was questioned. The decision arrives shortly after the Supreme court agreed to hear another case concerning Trump's alleged conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election results.

Arguments for this case are scheduled for late April, with a decision expected by June or July.

Read more such news on techinsighttoday
Thank you so much for reading.

Leave a Comment