Supreme Court on Trump v Colorado

The Supreme Court of the United States recently issued a slip opinion in the case of Trump v. Anderson (Docket Number: 23–719) on March 4, 2024. Here’s my take from my vantage point.

·       Background: A group of Colorado voters argued that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits former President Donald J. Trump from seeking the Presidential nomination of the Republican Party in the current election. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with this contention and ordered the exclusion of the former President from the Republican primary ballot in the State.

·       Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment: This section states that no person who has previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same shall be eligible for certain offices, including the office of President. However, it also allows Congress to remove such disability by a two-thirds vote.

·       The Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision. It held that Congress, rather than the States, is responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates. Therefore, former President Trump’s eligibility cannot be determined by the State of Colorado, and he may be placed on the primary ballot. This slip opinion sheds light on the constitutional implications of Section 3 and its application to former President Trump’s candidacy.

The Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion, with some Justices filing dissenting opinions.

Per Curiam Opinion:

·       The Court ruled that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which covers eligibility related to insurrection or rebellion, falls under Congress's authority, not individual states.

·       Former President Donald J. Trump, seeking the Republican Party’s Presidential nomination, was the focus of this case.

·       The Colorado Supreme Court ordered Trump's exclusion from the Republican primary ballot in Colorado, ignoring any write-in votes for him.

·       The U.S. Supreme Court overturned this decision, stating that Congress is responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates. There were dissenting opinions filed by some of the Justices.

Trump’s Arguments:

·       Trump’s lawyer argued that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to the former president because a president is not an “officer of the United States.”

·       They contended that Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, during the attack on the U.S. Capitol, were protected speech and not insurrection.

·       The lawyer emphasized textual and originalist interpretations to persuade conservative justices.

Anderson’s Arguments:

·       Norma Anderson, the challenger, asserted that Trump’s actions on January 6th constituted sufficient evidence of “engaging” in “insurrection.”

·       Anderson’s position was that the plain meaning of “insurrection” includes the “concerted and public use of force” to hinder or prevent a peaceful transfer of power.

·       Their argument focused on the events surrounding the Capitol attack as evidence of insurrection.

Additional Dissenting Views:

·       Some dissenting justices in Colorado questioned whether a state court had the authority under state law to hear this type of claim.

·       They also debated whether Congress needed to pass a law enforcing Section 3 or if states could independently decide its enforcement.

The dissenting opinions revolved around textual interpretation, the definition of “insurrection,” and the balance between federal and state authority in enforcing Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for future elections in the United States. Here’s my take from my vantage point:

·       By asserting federal jurisdiction over Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court ensures consistent and uniform application of eligibility requirements for federal officeholders and candidates. This precedent will guide future cases involving similar constitutional provisions.

·       The decision reinforces the role of Congress in enforcing Section 3. States cannot independently determine the eligibility of candidates based on this provision. Future state-level challenges to federal officeholders’ eligibility will likely be directed to federal courts.

·       Candidates seeking federal office now have a clearer understanding of the process. They must address eligibility concerns at the federal level, emphasizing the importance of complying with constitutional requirements.

·       By clarifying the authority responsible for eligibility determinations, the Court aims to prevent election disputes arising from conflicting state decisions. This stability is crucial for maintaining public trust in the electoral process.

·       The decision may impact political strategies. Candidates and parties will consider Section 3 implications when selecting nominees. It also highlights the need for constitutional literacy among politicians and voters.

From the vantage point of its import, the Court’s ruling provides guidance, promotes consistency, and ensures that future elections adhere to constitutional standards.

THE SUPREME COURT'S SLIP OPINION IN THE CASE OF TRUMP V. ANDERSON