The case revolved around a clause in the 14th Amendment stating that anyone who took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against it is ineligible to hold state or federal office. The Colorado Supreme Court had ruled Dec. 19 that Trump’s actions in support of the Jan. 6 insurrection disqualified him from the ballot.
“While the Supreme Court allowed Donald Trump back on the ballot on technical legal grounds, this was in no way a win for Trump,” Noah Bookbinder, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the liberal legal group that led the Colorado lawsuit, said in a statement. “The Supreme Court had the opportunity in this case to exonerate Trump, and they chose not to do so.”
In its decision, the U.S. Supreme Court remained silent on whether Trump engaged in insurrection or not, but instead solely determined that states did not have the authority under Section 3 to disqualify federal candidates. In addition, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett issued her own concurrence stating that the case “does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.”
“Wouldn’t that be the last place you’d look for authorization for the states, including the Confederate states, to enforce … the presidential election process?” he added. “That seems to be a position at war with the whole thrust of the 14th Amendment and very ahistorical.”“To put it most baldly, the question that you have to confront is why a single state should get to decide who gets to be president of the United States,” she said at the time.
Would you join us to help keep our stories free for all? Your contribution of as little as $2 will go a long way.