On March 4th, 2024, the Supreme Court decided unanimously in favor of Donald Trump in a case appealed from the State Supreme Court of Colorado. The Colorado Supreme Court had ruled in December 2023 to exclude Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 presidential election ballots under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which disqualifies any candidates for public election who, having “previously taken an oath” as a public servant, committed acts of “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States of America. Trump subsequently appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear it earlier this year.
Despite some commentators’ predictions, the Court did not directly comment on the issue of whether or not Trump committed insurrection, as alleged by the Colorado Supreme Court in its 4-3 per curiam decision. In the Court’s own unanimous per curiam majority opinion, it instead focused on whether state courts could declare a federal candidate ineligible for election. Due to the fact that Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment only authorizes Congress to disqualify federal candidates under Section 3, states can “disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office,” but “have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.” The Court went on to also rule that implementation of Section 3 would require Congress to pass legislation under its Section 5 powers, ultimately stating that Section 3 was not self-enforcing.
Two parties took issue with the final part of this majority opinion. Justice Barrett filed her own opinion in concurrence, stating that she agrees with the main part of the Court’s reasoning but “would decide no more than that.” Even though she disagreed about the question of whether or not Section 3 was self-enforcing, Barrett still emphasized the importance of unanimity in such a high-profile case. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson filed a separate opinion in concurrence with the majority’s decision, similarly disagreeing with the Court’s views on whether the enforcement of Section 3 required Congress to pass relevant legislation. These three Justices’ concurrence accused the majority opinion of inventing “novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy,” in direct opposition to normal legal requirements of real controversy (that rulings should deal with the facts of the case on hand, not legal hypotheticals). Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson expressed fear, in their opinion, that the majority’s decision could impede Congress’s ability to act against insurrectionists in the future by closing off other possible avenues of disqualification.
With the 2024 U.S. presidential election looming, Trump v. Anderson could soon have palpable political and legal effects. The court isn’t wrong to worry about the “‘patchwork’ that would likely result from state enforcement” of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Following the Colorado Supreme Court’s initial decision last year, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick suggested that the state may take Trump’s upcoming opponent, Joe Biden, off of their own ballots for “allowing 8 million people to cross the border since he’s been president.” It’s horrifying to imagine what democracy would look like if states were allowed to simply disallow their citizens to vote for federal candidates who go against their legislatures’ current preferences. Nevertheless, many others join the four concurring Justices in their concerns about the court’s potential judicial overreach, and it remains to be seen whether their decision that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is not self-enforcing will have a major impact on Congress’ ability to disqualify any candidates who have been accused or convicted of insurrection and other related crimes.
Sophomore Gavin Myer is a Staff Writer. His email is gmyer@fandm.edu.