In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that states do not have the constitutional authority to boot former President Donald Trump from the ballot.
Left-wing activist group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington backed a challenge by Colorado voters to disqualify Trump under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was written to bar previous Confederate insurrectionists from holding office. The left-leaning Colorado Supreme Court ruled in December that Trump was ineligible to appear on the ballot.
But the high court reversed the decision and ruled the Constitution “makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates.”
“States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency,” the 9-0 court concluded, in an embarrassing conclusion for everyone who preached from corporate media pages that the case for disqualifying Trump was “strong.”
The court expressed concern that any ruling otherwise would have created a “patchwork” of outcomes that would be subject to partisan whims.
“An evolving electoral map could dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties, and States across the county, in different ways and at different times,” the court held. “Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos — arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration.”
Trump faced similar challenges to his eligibility to appear on the ballot in both Illinois and Maine.
Trump reacted to the decision, calling it a “BIG WIN FOR AMERICA” in a Truth Social post.
Heritage Foundation senior legal fellows Hans von Spakovsky and Charles Stimson applauded the court for restoring “order” ahead of the election.
“The Supreme Court justices brought order to what could have become a chaotic election season by shutting down this partisan, anti-democratic, and unconstitutional effort in Colorado. They found numerous constitutional and statutory reasons why the Colorado court got it wrong,” von Spakovsky and Stimson said. “Activist courts and partisan bureaucrats should not be able to take away American voters’ right to choose the president. This ruling, which came together with amazing speed for the Supreme Court, should serve as a stern warning that radicals cannot interfere in our election process.”
Leftist Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan issued a concurring opinion but claimed the majority was wrong to rule that Congress must create legislation to disqualify a president based on Section 3.
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment states “Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” But the progressive trio let the cat out of the bag as to their motive for this rebuke, complaining that “the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement.”
“We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgement,” they wrote.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett also wrote a separate concurrence in which she stated the unanimity of the ruling is “the message Americans should take home.”
“For present purposes, our differences are far less important that our unanimity,” she said, noting “All nine justices agree on the outcome of this case.”
