In a significant legal development, on Monday, March 4, the United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that had prevented former President Donald Trump from appearing on the 2024 presidential ballot in the state of Colorado.
This case centered on the interpretation and application of the 14th Amendment’s Section 3, which bars individuals who have participated in insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. Constitution from holding office.
The Colorado Supreme Court had determined on December 19, 2023, that Trump’s conduct related to the January 6, 2021, insurrection made him ineligible for the ballot.
The decision arrived just a day before Colorado’s Republican presidential primary election, reinstating Trump as a candidate.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling clarified that the authority to enforce this section of the 14th Amendment does not reside with the states when it comes to federal offices, including the presidency. The Court elaborated that this power is reserved for Congress, thereby ensuring Trump’s eligibility for the ballot in not only Colorado but also in other states like Maine and Illinois where similar disqualifications had been attempted.
Noah Bookbinder of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which led the legal challenge in Colorado, interpreted the Supreme Court’s ruling as a technical victory for Trump that does not vindicate his actions.
Trump, however, celebrated the ruling as a “BIG WIN FOR AMERICA!!!”
The legal battle originated with a group of Colorado voters’ challenge to Trump’s eligibility under the 14th Amendment’s provision regarding insurrection. This was part of a wider effort by CREW and Free Speech for People to disqualify candidates based on their involvement in the events of January 6.
Initially, a lower Colorado court ruled that the presidency was not considered an “office under the United States” as per Section 3, thereby excluding Trump from the disqualification criteria. This decision was later overturned by the Colorado Supreme Court, which ruled that the presidency indeed falls under this provision and that Trump’s actions merited his disqualification from future political office.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to address whether Trump had indeed engaged in insurrection. Instead, it focused on the question of state versus federal jurisdiction, citing a precedent from 1995 in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton. This precedent argued that federal officers derive their authority from the entire nation, not individual states, limiting states’ powers in matters of federal election and qualifications.
While the Court unanimously agreed that states lack the authority to enforce Section 3 against federal candidates, there was a split among the justices. Four of them dissented from the broader assertion that enforcement of Section 3 is exclusively a congressional prerogative, indicating a division within the Court on this issue.
This Supreme Court decision not only secures Trump’s position on ballots in Colorado and potentially other states but also marks a critical juncture in the broader constitutional debate over the legacy of the January 6 insurrection and the enforcement mechanisms of the 14th Amendment. The ruling sheds light on the delineation of powers between state and federal jurisdictions in electoral matters, reinforcing the complex nature of American democracy.