WASHINGTON (OSV News) — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled March 4 that the 14th Amendment does not permit Colorado to bar former President Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot, as doing so would be a matter for Congress, not the states. While the justices offered some differences of opinion on the scope of the overall ruling, their decision was unanimous.
Bob Spagnola, a professor of business and leadership at Jesuit-run Regis University in Denver, told OSV News the 9-0 ruling was “pretty straightforward,” given the court’s ideological makeup, even as it ultimately held that barring someone from office over insurrection would take an act of Congress.
The case before the high court stemmed from the Colorado Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision Dec. 19 that Trump should be “disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment” over his alleged role in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. That ruling set up the review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Civil War-era provision in question was designed to keep former Confederates from returning to government following their rebellion against the United States.
But in its March 4 ruling, the high court found “this case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.”
Colorado can’t act as Congress
The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision overturned a district court judge’s ruling that found Trump incited an insurrection for his role in the Capitol riot, when supporters of the then-president attempted to thwart the certification of President Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election. But the lower court judge had found Trump could not be barred from the ballot, because it was unclear whether the 14th Amendment provision included the presidency.
The U.S. Supreme Court neither ruled on that question nor whether Trump’s actions constituted an insurrection, Spagnola noted.
“Basically what they’re saying is Colorado, you can’t do this on your own. It’s got to be an act of Congress in a federal election,” he said.
But the ruling left leeway for individual states to ban insurrectionists from their ballots in state races.
Although the court’s ruling was unanimous, there was some difference of opinion on its scope.
The court’s perceived liberal wing — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — argued the court’s ruling went further than necessary to resolve the basic question of the case.
“Although only an individual state’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so,” they wrote. “In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment.”
Bringing the political temperature down
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who is perceived as part of the court’s conservative wing, also expressed some agreement with her liberal colleagues and her reservations about the ruling as exceeding its necessary scope. However, she cautioned the controversial election-year case was not the time to “amplify disagreement.”
“This suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law in state court. It does not require us to address the complicated question of whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced,” Barrett wrote.
Barrett added, “The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”
Spagnola said, “I think they were concerned that in future arguments, that it’s possible that all insurrectionists might be looking to use this decision in some way to argue that they can’t be prevented from holding any kind of federal office.”
“I think that’s what they were afraid of,” he said. “And I think that’s where they were saying, ‘Hey, you kind of went too far. You said more than you needed to maybe on that,’ and I think that was their concern.”
Barrett’s comments, he said, sought to highlight that despite disagreement about scope, there was agreement on the ruling.
“The important thing is unanimity,” he said of her opinion. “As you would expect with nine people, we don’t necessarily necessarily agree with the way you approach it, but we agree with your decision.”
The Supreme Court Feb. 28 said it would take up another major case concerning Trump, involving arguments over whether Trump can be criminally prosecuted for his efforts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election. Trump and his lawyers have argued that he is immune from being criminally prosecuted for actions he took while still in office, an argument questioned by constitutional scholars.
