On March 4, 2024, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to bar former President Donald Trump from the primary election ballot.1 This may seem to mark the culmination of a case whose implications reverberate throughout the realm of the 2024 presidential election; yet, this matter is still not over. While the decision for Trump to remain on the ballot was unanimous among the nine justices, not everyone agreed with the extent of the ruling. Despite unanimity on the technical details of how Section 3 cannot be enforced, the justices were split on how it can be enforced. In the majority-conservative court, all three liberals and one conservative justice believed the majority Supreme Court opinion went too far with its ruling. The new ruling requires that before Section 3 can be enforced, Congress must pass legislation first, an unlikely event.2 Specifically, the per curiam ruling says, “[f]ormer President Trump challenges that decision on several grounds. Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.” 3 On a practical basis, this insinuates that the ruling protects any future insurrectionist from challenges to their election for federal office, be it the Presidency, Senate, House of Representatives, or any other. While the court did not deliberate on whether Trump’s actions qualify him as an insurrectionist, this ruling can nonetheless have significant effects on future candidates for office.
The minority of the Supreme Court (that being the three liberals and Justice Barrett, who wrote separate, concurring opinions) rightfully supports the overall outcome and voices reasonable criticisms of the decision. The consensus among the liberal justices was that the ruling went beyond what was required. Particularly, Justice Barrett said, “[t]his suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law in state court. It does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.” 4 In other words, Justice Barrett agreed with the minority that it was unnecessary for the court’s scope to be as extensive as it was. Their decision should have centered on the current case specific to Trump; however, the wording of the ruling applies to future candidates for office. The court’s majority, led six-to-three by conservatives, insisted that only Congress has the authority to enforce Section 3. This decision attempts to protect Trump from future encounters he could potentially have with Section 3, and possibly certain future presidential candidates. The majority’s opinion suggests that “there are no grounds on which to challenge an alleged insurrectionist from holding office.” 5 The court essentially ended the argument by saying that it was Congress’s responsibility. This is due to the current state of Congress, split closely on partisan lines (213 Democrats to 219 Republicans) such that there is not sufficient support for passing legislation. At least for the 2024 election, nothing is likely to legally prevent insurrectionists from running for federal office.
Yet, while this ruling answers the question of whether Donald Trump is eligible to stay on the ballot, it raises new questions. The ruling does not actually respond to whether Trump was an insurrectionist. While the court rightfully acknowledges that states are not permitted to enforce Section 3 against Trump, it does not once imply that Trump is innocent. Multiple courts, including those in Colorado, Maine, and Illinois, have found Trump’s actions leading up to January 6th qualify as an insurrection. Therefore, morally, Trump should be excluded from the Republican ballot. It is not right for a man who incited a riot at the U.S. Capitol to be able to hold the most powerful office in the nation. Encouraging the refusal of the 2020 election results stands against the righteous honor a person with power should have. Trump should be considered guilty of causing an insurrection, constitutionally defined as “rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof.” Attorney Mario Nicolais, who represented the voters who brought the lawsuit against Trump, said “[t]he [Colorado Supreme] Court found that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection after a careful and thorough review of the evidence.” 6 It should not be overlooked that the court did not absolve Trump from the charges of being an insurrectionist, something that he greatly desired.7
The message of the court is correct in that states cannot use Section 3 against a candidate in a federal election. The liberal minority is also correct that the court’s decision to only allow Congress to enforce Section 3 by passing legislation is wrong; the fact that this step needs to be taken makes the verdict politically harmful, as it does not make it difficult for an insurrectionist to hold office at all. While the overall message of the ruling is justified, its extent is not. Hopefully, further elucidation will be provided by the U.S. Supreme Court in the near future.