The Supreme Court’s decision affects more than 30 states that have considered challenges to remove Trump from 2024 ballot.
Unanimously sided with Trump
via Youtube
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously sided with former President Trump in a case regarding his eligibility for the 2024 primary ballot, impacting similar efforts in other states.
States cannot enforce Section 3
via NBC
The court clarified that states cannot enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for federal offices like the Presidency.
‘Big Win For America’
via CBS Detroit
Trump reacted to the ruling by saying, “BIG WIN FOR AMERICA!!!”
Rejected by the Court
via BBC News
Colorado’s attempt to remove Trump from the ballot was rejected by the Court due to concerns about conflicting state outcomes and the disruption it could cause to the election process.
Importance of unanimity
via WTHR
Justice Barrett emphasized the importance of unanimity in the Court’s decision.
States have no power
via Harvard Online
“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,” the Court wrote.
Donald Trump is eligible
via 60 Minutes
Colorado’s Secretary of State Jena Griswold said, “The United States Supreme Court has ruled that states do not have the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for federal candidates. In accordance with this decision, Donald Trump is an eligible candidate on Colorado’s 2024 Presidential Primary,” she said.
Conflicting state outcomes
via CBS
“Conflicting state outcomes concerning the same candidate could result not just from differing views of the merits, but from variations in state law governing the proceedings that are necessary to make Section 3 disqualification determinations,” the opinion states. “The result could well be that a single candidate would be declared ineligible in some States, but not others, based on the same conduct (and perhaps even the same factual record).”
Nullify the votes of millions
via CBS TEXAS
“The ‘patchwork’ that would likely result from state enforcement would ‘sever the direct link that the Framers found so critical between the National Government and the people of the United States’ as a whole,” the opinion says. “The disruption would be all the more acute — and could nullify the votes of millions and change the election result — if Section 3 enforcement were attempted after the Nation has voted,” it says.
Politically charged issue
via NewsNation
“Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos — arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration,” the opinion continues. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote, “The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election.”
Nine Justices agree
via pixabay
“Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home,” Justice Barrett said.
Complexity of defining ‘insurrection’
via Forbes Breaking News
Justice Kavanaugh highlighted the complexity of defining “insurrection” and the role of Congress in enforcing the 14th Amendment.
Who decides?
via FOX
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote, “When you look at Section 3, the term insurrection jumps out. And the questions are, what does that mean? How do you define it? Who decides? Who decides whether someone engaged in it?”
Difficult questions
via Sky News
Kavanaugh continued, “These are difficult questions, and you look right at Section 5 of the 14th Amendment … and that tells you Congress has the primary role here,” Kavanaugh said. “I think what’s different is the processes, the definition, who decides questions really jump out at you when you look at Section 3.”
Consequences
via Fox News
Chief Justice John Roberts asked Colorado’s attorney Jason Murray, “What do you do with consequences of your position? There will be disqualification proceedings on the other side, and some will succeed in very quick order, I would expect that a goodly number of states will say whoever the Democrat is, you’re off the ballot,” he said. “It would then come down to a small number of states deciding the election. That’s a pretty severe consequence.”
Raised concerns
via Guardian News
Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito raised concerns about the consequences and manageability of states disqualifying candidates.
